### OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN

I$onorable John 0.Marburger County 

### Attorney Fayette a0paty LaGrange, Texas

Dear Sir:

1939, Inwhloh you reque

rore made of tire, Ino. 

### base
or~hiuh YOUr0

u oonoluded

bent has r.endered Opinion No. O-1342, rable E.

### W. Xasterllng, county Attorney, Uaont, Texas, Inwhioh a question similar in your letter we8 answered. This ioles 734& and 7347 of the Revised Civil

aoted fraudulently or h+d adopted a fundamentally wrong mthod of assessment. A copy of?this opinion is enclosed for your further lnepeotlon

.

::'e Bave examined with Interest the petition of the Fayette Eleotrio CooperatZv&, 

### Inc.whioh me filed before theEonorable John 0. marburger, Page 2

Comalesionem~ 

### Court of Fayette Couuty. There ie no oontontion in the petition that the Btatutory nmthod of asmenmati 

### and of giving noLOtfceto appear before the Commleaioners* Court or the Board of $qwllzation was not oomplied wlth.



### Apparently appellant 18 badng ltm petition for reOQW&W the asrossnant OS thi6 property on rour grounds. It lrnaoemary that eaoh of these grounds be uonaldarad in the light or the rule bat down by 

### the Supreme Court of Taxaa ln the ease of State vn. Xallet Land and Cattle Co., 88 2. 

### W. (2d) 471, a8 followr:

*The rule hauibeau repeatedly annouuoed 

### that, in the absenoe or fraud
or lll6gallty. the aotlon of aboard of equalization 

### upona partioular ammsoment is final; and, furthermore, 

### that auoh valuation willnot be set aside merely upon a showing that the aanm ie In raot exces8i~e. If tha board rtdiy 

### andhonestly endeavore to

### ffr a 

### fair and juet valuation 

### ror taxing ~urpotm~
a a&stake on itr part, under euoh olroura

### etaarms, isnot rrubjsottoreviewby 

### the 

## oourto.Texas bPaoffio Ry. Co.v. City of 21 Paso ~(Tex. Sup.) 83 S. W. (26) 245; Rowland V. 

### City of Tyler (Tex. CO& App.) 6 S. W. (2d) 756: Druesdow v. Raker (Tex. Corn.

### App.) 229 3.W. 493, Duak v. Pealez, 74 Tex. 258, ll 5.

### W. llll; State
v..Chioago, R. I.h 0. Ry. Co. (Tex. Corn. App.) 863 8. W. 249; 8uuday Lake IrcinCo.
v. Wcbfleld, 247 U. S. 350, 38 S. Ct. 496, 62 L. Xd. 1154; 

### However, the

### rule haa b&en declared 

### that If a bo+rd of equalization adopts 

### ama6hod 

### that Isillegal arbitrary,
or fundazmntally wrong, the 

### de&ion of .theboard nay be attacked and set aside." 

### Firat, it is alleged in the petition that the essesexwmt waa made arbitrarily 

### by

### theComnleelonera*Court. ACOOrdfag to the racte submitted in the opinion request, the property of this oorporation was assessed at avaluation leas than other 

### proparty In the mime oounty. If thls 1s truqthe oorporation hae not been injured aad would have 

### no right to have thls propwtp re-aewaaied. If thle

### werenot 

### true,.Itwould be neoeeearyXonorabla John C. karburger, Rage 3 

# 170

for the appellant to ahou~that the Gommissloner8* Court had acted fraudulently before it

### wouldbe entitled to have it8 property re-asoessed under this that allegation.

The rreoondallegation in the appellant*8 petition is that the original as8eoament was 

### madewithout uelng or taking Into uonalderation the proper method of a8sessment. Ii the 

### SaotB are a8 

### stated in the letter that appellant*8 

### propertywa8 

### assessed 

### at avalue lower than other property In the aounty then thI8 allegation would avail them nothing. Bowever, oven assuming that appellant's prop8rty was assessed at a value greater than oorrespondlng property in the oounty, than under the above allegation, itwould be neoeasery,for it

### to ahowthat the method of aeaeosment adopted by the CommI8oIonerev 

### Courtwas fundamentally wrong and suah as **would** allow a dietrict court of thie State to eet aside the original as8888me~t.

The 

### thirdallegation in appellant's petition is t&t the Comlselonorag Court did not seek to asoertein the 

### aotual reasonable oash 

### market value a8 provided by Artiole 

### 72llor 

### theRevised civil 

### Statutss. Artiole 72l.lofVernon*8 Annotated 8tatuts8 reads as follows:

WZiereafter

### whenany person, 

### firm or oorporation renders his, their or its property in thI8 State for taxation to any tax assessor, and makes 

### oath as to the kind, aharauter, quality and quantity
or suoh proplrrty, and the Bald offioer aooeptlng said rendition from such 

### person, rlrn or corporation of such 

### property is satiefled that It is oorreotly and properly valued aooordlng to the reasonable oash market value oi euoh property on the .market at the time of it8 rendition, he shall list the same 

### accordingly; but, If the esseseior is ratlsfled that tha value Is below the reasonable aash market value of such property, he shall ut,onoe place
on said rendition oppoalte saoh piece of property sorendered an anaunt equal to the reasonable oash market value of auoh

1roper60 at the time of its rendition, and f such 

### property shall be found to have
no market value by suoh officer, then atHOnorable John C. Maiburgr, Bag8 4

Such SU!S98 said OffiOer Shari deem th8 real 

### orlntrinslo talus 0r the property; and 

## ir the person llatlng such property or the 

### owner thereof Is not aatlsfled with the value plaoed on the property by the a88ea8or, he shall 80 WJtiiy the 

### a88688Or,aqdifdesiring 

### 80t0dopaak8 oath 

### beforethe 

### a8tse88or that 

### the

### vdluation 80

### .iixedby said orriicar on said property 18 excessive; suoh offloer to

. furnish euoh rsnditlon, together with his 

### valuation 

### thereon sad the oath of, auoh 

### person, ilrm or otrioar 0s any oorporation, ff any euqh oath.has been made, to the 

### 00ncnl8810rLer8' aoupt 0s the oountp 'In whloh 

### saidrendition

### w&smade, whloh oourt shall hear evidence and determine the 

### true value of such 

### propmtyon January First, 19 (here give year 

### forwhich e8ses6memt ismad$
as la herein 

### provided; ouah orfloer 

### oroo~rt 8halltaks into 

### W3~8ld8ra~iOik what said property oould **hare** b86ll

### sold for any time within Sir

### monthsn8Xt before the SirSt day 0s Jamary 

## 0sthe y8ar for 

### whlohthe property la rendered."

hu examination of the above quoted article indioatea that certain notioe 

### isneasssqry to be given'to a taxpayer before a hearing is held by the Commis810wrst Court aotlng
es a Board ot 

### Fiquallzatlon. There is nothing in eppell8nt*s petition whiah alleges that this notice 

### Was not'glven and that the 

### hearln(J was sot regular in all.of its details. 

## or ooUrs6, the facts as set out in your letter that the aorporetiOn'8 prOpeJ?ty 0168aSSeS86d at aV8lU6 less than Other property in the ooUnty would nullify this third allegation. However, uuder any situation itwould 

### beneoessary tor appellants iutderthis allegation to prove that'ite property had been aSSesSed et a greater 

### Vah8 thanOther prOptU+y iUthe BOUnty and that this es3e88ment was aresult of fraudulent eotiOn on the pa Of the CO;pmi88iOu8rS *court or crresult 0r their hayiIIg

### used a,tundamentally wrong method of aS888Em8&.

AQ~8lbIlt'S 

### &St and fOUS'thall8gatiOn'lil its petition is that all other property 

### We8 a8ssssed at alxty (t%$) par sent of its reasonable cash niarke&value while the property

# 4.72

honorable Johu a. Jifarburger,Page 3

of that corporation wa8 arbltrarlly, 

### unlawfully aud without ju8tftiCatiOn and 

### WithOUt the 

### a88Of the.Pl-Op-LC8thOdOf 68868smen6, 

### a88688Odat a prlae or veluatioa in i3xo888**0s** its eatnal oaeh market 

### value. A?p8llMt cctit8nds that this is ololatlve of the 14th &wn6.aient

## or the Federal Conetltution. Of 00ur86, this allegation 

### isbased on a Sac6 whloh 

### is

### dircratly

in cOntllO6 with the Paata sub%ltted In your latter. Thir fourth allegation seem8 to be a "catch all" allegation. This allegation see88 to inolude aeoh of the other three. 

### Itis the 

### opixiionOf this 

### DOpaitant, therefOr8, that before the Fayette Elsatric Cooperative, Ino. OluIStU4tafn it8 QO8itiOI.IOf 

### hIWing it8 prior 8BS88808ut opened and its property rS-as8088ed it will be

### neoassary to prove what they have alleged in their rourth allegation

- that 

### is, that Itsd!roQ8rty wss 888eSSed at avalue greater thau other oorrespon ng property in the.couuty and that such aa8888amnt was a result either of rraudulen.eatlon on the part 0s the County Comlssfoaer8* Court or that said court inmaking the aSSe88iiWll%had 

### adopted a fundameutally wrong method.



### Wetrust that

### theabove information will 88m8 a8
a

### basis for the OOuSidWatiOB oKthe applloation o? Fayette Bleotrlc Qooperatlve, Ino. to have its property re-aa8asa8d.

Yours 

### vary truly

ATTOREfmOEZ?ERALOF TEXAS

BC:RS APZOVEDNOV 17, 1939 

# 5%--L&4.--

ATTORNEY G- OF TEXAS