OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

I$onorable John 0. Marburger 

County Attorney 

Fayette a0paty 

La Grange, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

1939, In whloh you reque 

rore made of 

tire, Ino. base 

or ~hiuh YOU r0 

u oonoluded 

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

rable E. W. Xasterllng, county Attorney, 

Uaont, Texas, In whioh 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 the 
Eonorable 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 noLOtfce to 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 

lr naoemary 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 haui beau repeatedly 

annouuoed that, in the absenoe or fraud 

or lll6gallty. the aotlon of a board of 

equalization upon a 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 

and honestly endeavore to ffr a fair 

and juet valuation ror taxing ~urpotm~ 

a a&stake on itr part, under euoh olrouraetaarms, is not rrubjsot to review by the 

oourto. Texas b Paoffio 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 Ircin Co. 

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 a ma6hod that Is illegal arbitrary, 

or fundazmntally wrong, the de&ion of 

.the board nay be attacked and set aside." 

Firat, it is alleged in the petition that the essesexwmt waa made arbitrarily by the Comnleelonera* Court. ACOOrdfag to the racte submitted in the opinion request, the property 

of this oorporation was assessed at a valuation 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 were not true, .It would be neoeeeary 
Xonorabla John C. karburger, Rage 3 

170 

for the appellant to ahou~that the Gommissloner8* Court had 

acted fraudulently before it would be entitled to have it8 

property re-asoessed under this that allegation. 

The rreoond allegation in the appellant*8 petition 

is that the original as8eoament was made without uelng or 

taking Into uonalderation the proper method of a8sessment. 

Ii the SaotB are a8 stated in the letter that appellant*8 

property wa8 assessed at a value 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, it would be neoeasery,for 

it to ahow that the method of aeaeosment adopted by the CommI8oIonerev Court was fundamentally wrong and suah as would 

allow a dietrict court of thie State to eet aside the original 

as8888me~t. 

The third allegation 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 

72ll or the Revised civil Statutss. Artiole 72l.l of Vernon*8 

Annotated 8tatuts8 reads as follows: 

WZiereafter when any 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 so rendered an anaunt equal to 

the reasonable oash market value of auoh 

1 

roper60 at the time of its rendition, and 

f such property shall be found to have 

no market value by suoh officer, then at 
HOnorable John C. Maiburgr, Bag8 4 

Such SU!S 98 said OffiOer Shari deem th8 

real or lntrinslo 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, aqd if desiring 80 t0 do paak8 

oath before the a8tse88or that the vdluation 80 .iixed by 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 said rendition w&s made, whloh oourt 

shall hear evidence and determine the true 

value of such propmty on January First, 19 

(here give year for which e8ses6memt is mad$ 

as la herein provided; ouah orfloer or oo~rt 

8halltaks into W3~8ld8ra~iOik what said 

property oould hare b86ll sold for any time 

within Sir months n8Xt before the SirSt 

day 0s Jamary 0s the y8ar for whloh the 

property la rendered." 

hu examination of the above quoted article indioatea 

that certain notioe is neasssqry 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 0168 aSSeS86d at a V8lU6 less than Other property in the ooUnty would nullify this third allegation. However, uuder any situation it would be neoessary tor appellants 

iutder this allegation to prove that'ite property had been 

aSSesSed et a greater Vah8 than Other prOptU+y iU the BOUnty 

and that this es3e88ment was a result of fraudulent eotiOn on 

the pa Of the CO;pmi88iOu8rS * court or cr result 0r their hayiIIg used a,tundamentally wrong method of aS888Em8&. 

AQ~8lbIlt'S &St and fOUS'th all8gatiOn'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 a88 Of the. Pl-Op- LC8thOd Of 

68868smen6, a88688Od at 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 is based 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. It is the opixiion Of this DOpaitant, therefOr8, that before the Fayette Elsatric Cooperative, Ino. 

OluI StU4tafn it8 QO8itiOI.I Of 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 Its 

d! 

roQ8rty wss 888eSSed at a value 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 

in making the aSSe88iiWll% had adopted a fundameutally wrong 

method. 

We trust that the above 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