Honorable Robert S. Calvert Opinion No. ~-376 

Comptroller of Public Accounts 

State Capitol Building Re: Effect of the order of 

Austin, Texas the Commissioners' Court 

of Rardin County, entered 

on March 24, 1969, on 

valuations on the county 

ad valorem tax rolls 

which had been finally 

approved by the Board 

of Equalization on 

Dear Mr. Calvert: January 22, 1969. 

You ask our opinion on the following inquiry: 

"Please advise me whether the hereinafter 

mentioned order of the Commissioners Court of 

Hardin County entered on March 24, 1969, changes 1 

the valuations shown on the tax rolls of that 

county. 

"The facts are 'as.follows: On January-22, .1969, 

the Commissioners Court finally approved all the ads 

valorem tax rolls for the county for the year 1968 

and delivered them to the county tax collector for 

him to use in collecting the taxes shown thereon. 

The tax collector has been receiving and receipting 

for the taxes shown on these rolls and has remitted 

to me the State's portion of his collections as 

shown by the rolls. 

"On March 24, 1969, the Commissioners Court of 

Rardin County entered the following order: 

"Upon the motion of Commissioner 

Caraway and a second by Commissioner 

Burch and by a three to two vote of the' 

Court, do hereby settle the dispute 

-1858- 
Honorable Robert S. Calvert, Page 2 (M- 376) 

with the taxpayers at 27% and penalty 

& Interest, to correct the tax rolls 

to reflect the settlement figure. Any 

taxpayer who dates his check by the 

31st of March, 1969, will get reoeipt 

for same at this rate. The Court 

voting as follows: 

County Judge Lack voting nay 

Commissioner Caraway voting aye 

Commissioner Barrington voting nay 

Commissioner Means voting aye 

Commissioner Burch voting aye." 

'My question to you Is, what effect, if 

any, does this order have upon valuations shown 

on the tax rolls?" 

Our opinion is that the order of the Commlssloners' 

Court entered on March 24, 1969, has no effect upon the 

valuations shown on the tax rolls of the county, and that as 

to those valuations, such order is void and of no effect whatever. 

Cur State Supreme Court has, repeatedly and consistently, 

held that the decisions of Boards of Equalization in the matter 

of valuations are quasi-judicial In nature, and, In the absence 

of fraud or illegality, that their decisions are not subject to 

aside. State v. Houser, 138 TezC 1928, 156 S.W.2d 

Victory v. St ate, 138 Tex. 285, 158 S.W:2d 760, 

Their orders are res adjudicate. State v.~ Gouts' 

S.W. 281 (Tex.Civ.App. 1912, no writ). 

In the case of State v. Mallet Land & Cattle Co., 

126 Tex. 392, 88 S.W.2d 471, 472 (19351, the Court safd, 

11 

. . . The rule has been repeatedly 

announced that, in the absence of fraud 

or Illegality, the action of a board of 

equalization upon a particular assessment is final; and, furthermore, that 

such valuation will not be set aside 

merely upon a showing that the same is 

in fact excessive. If the Board fairly 

and honestly endeavors to fix a fair 

and just valuation for taxing purposes, 

-1859- 
. . 

Honorable Robert S. Calvert, Page 3 (M- 376) 

a mistake on its part, under such 

circumstances, is not subject to review 

by the Court. . . .‘I 

See also State v. Chicago, R. I. 8 0. Ry. Co., 

251 (Tex.Comm.App. 1924). 

263 S.W..249, 

In Rowan Drilling Co, v. Sheppard, 126 Tex. 276, 87 S.W.2d 

706 (19351, the Court said, 

“When we read the various tax 

provlsions of our Constitution singly, 

and in the light of each other, we are 

convinced that by necessary implication, ‘: 

if not by direct language, it prohibits 

more than one valuation of property for 

ad valorem&x purposes for the same tax 

year. In this connection we oall 

attention to the fact that the various 

tax provisions of our Constitution use 

the word “valuation” in the singular. 

Also a holding that more than one 

valuation can be provided by law for 

the same tax year would bring about 

Impossible situations in regard to many 

tax matters. In this oonnection we call 

attention to the fact that section 52 of 

article 3, of our Constitution permits 

bdnds to be issubd by.any cbunty, any 

political subdivision of a county, any 

number of adjoining counties, or any 

political subdivision of the state, or 

any defined district now or hereafter to 

be described and defined within the 

state of Texas, etc., for certain purposes 

in any amount not to exceed one-fourth of 

the assessed valuatton of the real property 

in such district or territory. It is clear 

to us that this provision of the Constitution 

demonstrates a direct constitutional intent 

not to allow more than one valuation. It 

undoubtedly demonstrates a constf;tutional 

implication not to do so. . . . (at P. 708)., 

- 1860 - 
., . 

Honorable Robert S. Calvert, Page 4 (M-376) '., '. ,' 

Article 7253, Vernon's Civil Statutes, reads as follows, 

"When any tax collector shall have 

received the assessment rolls or books of 

the county, he shall receipt to the 

commissioners court for the same; and 

said rolls or books shall be full and 

sufficient authority for said ~collector 

to receive and oollect the taxes therein. 

levied." 

Further, Article 7254 of these statutes, in Its relevant 

portion, reads as follows, 

"The tax collector shall be the 

receiver and collector of all taxes 

assessed upon the tax list In his county, 

whether assessed for the state or county, 

school, poor house or other purposes; 

and he shall proceed toncollect the same 

according to law, . . . 

The Tax Collector has been regularly receiving and 

reoeiptlng for the taxes shown on the tax rolls, as you have 

stated, since about January 29, 1969. Dcth he and all persons 

who have paid their taxes have relied upon these rolls and 

acted pursuant to them. In this respect the case of South 

Taylor County Independent School Dist. v. Winters Ind-ent 

Rchool Dist 151 T 330 49 S W d 1010 1012 (1952) i 

relevant. %e opin"i% of ;hz Att&r$y GeneGal Number O-93: 

(1939) is also relevant and in accord with our views. 

This opinion does not purport to deny the general 

authority of Commissioners I Courts to declare certain assessments invalid pursuant to Articles 7346 and 7347, Vernon's 

Civil Statutes. This opinion is founded strictly upon the 

partioular facts stated in your opinion request and upon the 

particular order of the Commissioners I Court here in question. 

SUMMARY 

The order of the Commissioners' 

Court of Hardin County, Texas, entered 

on March 24, 1969, wherein it attempts 

to change the valuations shown on the 

-1861- 
. - 

Honorable Robert S. Calvert, Page 5 (M-376 ) 

tax rolls of the county whloh had 

been finally approved on January 22, 

by the Court, has no effect upon the 

valuations shown on those tax rolls. 

1969 

VezQtruly yoyrs, 

$$2Lgkcg&G 

tto ey G&era1 of Texas 

Prepared by W. E. Allen 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Kerns B. Taylor, Chairman 

George Kelton, Vice-Chairman 

Jack Goodman 

JoIopj$EGsSharpley 

Fisher Tyler 

W. V. Geppert 

Staff Legal Assistant 

Hawthorne Phillips 

Executive Assistant 

-1862-