OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

nonar&ble Jo&n T . tlutohioon 

county Atbornq 

l&Ear COulaf 

Plbri8, Eexns 

and wthority Of 

refund suoh t-sea COlto original payers. 

we quote from 

cominicatioti, which 

Description OS Property 

Thlr i8 to cortlfy that i hove uam.lnecl the Tax 

llecordo of &MP CWnty, f(lxas, ra8 oo fw no I 

con ascertain all Couatf,’ State 81~3 School Taxes 

othi Aesamswmt8 bole been paid on the *bore de+ 

&r&bed property to and including the year 1949 

l nd 811 County and state Tax?8 and A~~e~~cmts 

hare been paid to and inaludlng the year with 

the t0110w1ng exceptiona, 
. . GC?4 

uonorable John T. uutchlaon - page 2 

T 

i5; 

ColleOtor, Laam County, T-am. 

Deputy. 

Such l tatementa are signed '0. w. Ieodard, Tax 

Aaaeaaor4olle&or of Lamar County’ or ‘0. 1. 

Ioodard, TM Aareaaor-Colltotor of Lamar County 

w m?puty. 

*The Tax Aaaeaaor-Colleetor of L8mnar County 

haa lurniahod such Tax Statementa to meatberm ot 

,the general pub116 requesting ame* without 

charge, however, 8 tee of fifty oenta (aof!), For 

eaoh auoh statement laaued, haa been aollected 

by the Tax Aaaeaaor-ColleCtOr ot taarr County 

from iadiriduala engaged in the 8batraot budnesa* The l batraat aompaniea, rpproxirutel~ l/3 

of the tI&e, charged their euotomera one (ti.00) 

dollar for ,meh certificate. Uowevc, z/3 of the 

abatrwta to which such certiflaatea mere rttacbed no ohbrge uaa wde by the abatrrat yaopany for 

attaching such certificate, the abatraetlng COBpauy loring or obaorbing the amount paid for nueh 

certificate. 

‘On or about Jagaary 1, 1944 the Tax AaaeaaorCollector OS Lawr County tiled, with the County 

Auditor of Lomar County, hia raaaunt ahorlng that 

he had oollected, for the 18uUtOe ot ueh atatcmenta, the urn of aeven hundred few ($?tM,f~o) dallara, from April 1, 1941 to Deeember I, loI?, which 

mum or money raa,ruxd+ed by the Auditor and was 

deposited to the ~8ecount ot Lamnr County. 

*The abatroot aompanlea enga@d in the buaineas OS Eaklng abetracts in Lamar County hare 

riled aith tbe Comiaalonerga Court t alrim lor 

the refund of much Toes, aIlszing th8f meh fees 

rere illegally collected wlthout authOrit. of law 

mtxi requesting repaysent of' such fee8 to th@m by 

the Coraiaaioner* a hurt. 

*The Coaiiaaloner~a Court baa requested my 

opinion &a County Attorney rith retcrcnoe to the 

following qucationa, aubatanti811~~ 
Honorable John T. hutohlson - page 3 

. . 605 

. 

'1. Is the Tax Assessor-Collector at Lamar 

County, Texas, authorized to charge and collect 

a tee of fifty aents (no{) from persona engaged 

in the abstract business for the issuance of such 

Tax Statements am hereinbefore met out? 

s2. Is the Tax Assessor-Colleotor of Lamar 

County required by law to account for and pay 

over to Lamar County the fees Collated by him 

for the Issuance of such Tax Statements? 

l 3. Is the Commissloner~a Court of Lamar 

County authorized to refund, to the persons or 

firms originally paying euch fees, the fees colleoted.by the Tax Assessor-Collector of Lamar 

County from abstractors for the issuance of such 

Tax Statements upon their presenting a olrlm to 

the Coxnuiasioner~s Court for the refund of such 

Pees?. 

According 

has a population of 

to the 1940 Federal oenaua, Lamar County 

50,426. 

(Sup. Ct.) 

In the case of Nueoea County v. Currington et al, 

I62 S. Yr. (2) 687, wherein Nueoea County sought 

a money judgment against its tax assessor and collector for 

the amount of certain fees or charges collected by such assessor and collector for the issuance of tax certificates, 

aubstantlally the same (La the *tax statementas about which 

you inquire, It was held that the tax assessor and collector 

acted in her official capacity In issuing the tax oertiflcatea and reoeivlng therefor the fees sued for by the oounty; 

also, that it was her duty to aocount for and pay same into 

the county treasury for the benefit of the Offioer Salary 

Fund, and that having failed to do so, and having breached 

her official duty in that respect, both she andher surety 

became liable to the county therefor. However, said opinion held further that unless a tee is provided by law for 

an ottlcial service required to be performed and the amount 

thereof fixed by law, none can lawfully be charged therefor. 

Artiole 72460, V.A.C.S., was amended In 1941 to provide for certain tees to be charged for the Issuance of such 

tax certifioate in countiee containing a population of fire 

hundred thousand (M)O,Ooo) or more, aocording to the last preceding or any future Federal census , but re have found no fee 
606 

gonorable John T. gutchison - page 4 

fixed by law for such acrvioea as provided in Article 1224, 

'g&.8., 1925, in counties ot a population of leas than tire 

hundred thousand. 

Therefore, in view of the above, we answer your 

first two questions as follovs: 

Quoatlon No. 11 lo. 

Question No. 28 Yes. 

In the case of Stegall, sheriff, T. McLennan 

County, (civ. Apps. -- wit dims., opinion oorrect) 144 

5. Y. (2) 1111, wherein the sheriff sued the county for 

excess fees paid the county , the following rule of lax 

ram announoed; 

"@Ien money 18 paid under a ItutU sdStake of law, the mistake of law, in and ot 

itself, is no ground for recovering it back. 

All persona are equslly presumed to liiro+,the 

law, and In such case both parties are equally at fault, and equally innocent of wrong 

done. l'o admit ignorance of law to be legally recognized as a fact sufficient In itself 

to pervert the will of the parties doing the 

Lot, so that it should be said and held that 

the will d.id not concur with the ect done, 

thereby relieving him from the responsibility 

for and the oonaequences of the act, would 

render the edministrations of the law impraotiaable; and hence the rule is founded upon a 

political necessity, as reli as upon public 

policy. l * +. &rely, this record discloses 

that each of the acts done by Sheriff Leslie 

Stegall and kcLcanan County in connection xith 

the Eatter in question was done voluntarily, 

without compulsion or duress under a mutual 

mistake of law. ci l l .fl 

It is the opinion of this department that under 

the facts submItted by you the payment of the fees to the 

Tax Aaaeaaor-Collector ram done voluntarily and without oompulslon or duress under a mutual mlatake of law, and re 

answer your Qeatlon No. 3 in the negative. 
b’ ’ 

nonorable John 1. ilutchlson - page 6 

Trusting the foregoing satisfactorily answers 

your questions, re are 

Very truly yours 

ATTOHNEX GENEUL OF TEXAS 

m 

Robert L. Lattlmore, Jr. 

Assistant 

RLL-biR