TEIEATTORNEYGENERAL 

OFmXAS 

AUSTIN 11. TEXAS 

July 12, 1962 

t?l@JVU& ./W-hux 

WVILL WILSON 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

rTit.#le: 0-&4/y 

0-L 35-.2 * o- 3ary 

D-/s~:s-/~ JO- &Z-S3 

Mr. .2iwin E. Pape Opinion No. WW-1379 

County Attorney 

Guadalupe County Re: Payment of charges due newsSequin, Texas papers for publishing of citations and notices of sheriff’s sale in delinquent 

Dear Mr. Pape: ad valorem tax suits. 

You ask the opinion of this office with reference to payment of charges due newspapers for publishing citations and notices of sheriff’s sale in suits for delinquent ad valorem taxes 

1*Jhcn a taxing unit who is a party to the suit purchases the land 

at sale for the delinquent taxes. 

The two relevant statutes are i1rticles 7333 and 73’r5b, Sec. 

9, Vernon’s Civil Statutes. We paraphrase your three questions 

as follows: 

1. Which of these two statutes applies? 

2. When the County purchases the land may the county pay 

the portion of these charges Imposed upon the State? 

3. If the County cannot pay the State’s portion of these 

charges then how may their payment be procured from 

the State? 

Art. No. 7333 reads as follows: 

“In each case such fees shall be taxed 

as costs against the lands to be sold under 

judgment for taxes, and paid out of the proceeds of sale of same after taxes, penalty 

and interest due therein are paid, and in no 

case shall the State or county be liable therefor except that where the State or other taxing unit is the successful bidder at the tax 

sale, all charges due newspapers for the publishing of citations and notices of sheriff’s 

sale shall be paid by the county and State 

and other taxing units in tro ortion to the 

taxes adjudicated to each. P underscoring 

added ) . 
Mr. Uwin E. Pape, page 2 Opinion No. WW-1379 

Article 7345b, Section 9, in its pertinent portion reads 

as follows: 

“If the property be sold to any taxing 

unit which is a party to the judgment under 

decree of Court in said suit, the title to 

said property shall be bid In and held by 

the taxlng unit purchasing same for the use 

and benefit of itself and all other taxing 

units which are parties to the suit and which 

have been adjudged in said suit to have tax 

liens against such property, pro rata and In 

proportion to the amount of the tax liens in 

favor of said respective taxing units as established by the judgment in said suit, and 

costs and expenses shall not be.payable until sale by such taxinf unit so purchasing 

same. . , .II (underscoring added). 

This sec. 9 of Art. 7345b further provides that when the land 

is sold by the taxing unit which purchased it at the foreclosure sale that 

I, 

. . . the proceeds thereof shall be received by or paid over to the taxing unit 

which purchased said property at the tax 

foreclosure sale, for the account of itself 

and all other taxing units adjudged to have 

a tax.li.en against such property, and all 

taxing units so receiving said proceeds 

shall first pay out of the same all costs 

and expenses of Court and of sale, and dl Stribute the remainder among all taxing units 

for which purchasing taxing unit purchased 

and held said property, pro rata and in 

proportion to the amounts of their tax liens 

against said property as established in said 

judgment. . . .‘I (underscoring added). 

In answer to your first question: One to whom these newspaper charges are due may elect to proceed for their collection 

untier Art. 7333 or he may wait until the land is sold by the 

taxing units and be paid out of the proceeds of that sale. We 

explain this more fully in our answer to your third question. 

We answer your second question: The county may not pay the 

proportionate part of these charges which are imposed upon the 

State by the clear language of Art. 7333. 
Mr. Alwin E. Pape, page 3 Opinion No, WW-1379 

In answer to your third question: The proportionate part 

of these charges due by the State may be paid in either of two 

ways. First: Pursuant to Article 7333, by presentation of claim 

to the Legislature. We know of no provisions In the present 

appropriation bill nor of any other funds now available to the 

State for payment of the State's proportionate liability,. Second: 

In the event the gland should be sold prior to payment authorized 

by the Legislature pursuant to Article 7333, then the State's 

proportionate part of these charges may be paid out of its proportionate part of the proceeds of the sale of the land In accordance with the provisions of Art. 7345b, Section 9 (supra). 

Summarily stated, we hold that Art. 7333 Imposes a liability 

upon the State In addition to, and not exclusive of, the liability 

for payment of these charges out of the proceeds of sale of the 

land as provided for in Art. 7345b, Sec. 9. Our reasoning in 

support of this conclusion follows. 

The items "all charges due newspapers for the publishing 

of citations and notices of sheriff's sale" covered by Art. 7333 

clearly are a particular class and a subgroup off the more general 

kind of items, denominated by the above quoted provisions of Art. 

7345b, Section 9, as "costs and expenses" and as "costs and expenses of court and of sale." 

Art. 7345b, Section 9 was last amended in 1947, and Article 

7333 was last amended in 1951. 

With respect to these charges due newspapers, Art. 7333 is 

an exception to the more general provisions of Art. 7345b, Section 9. Clearly these two statutes are In pari materia. The 

following rules of statutory construction are applicable: 

"Under the rules of statutory construction, 

statutes in pari materia should be construed 

together and where one statute deals with a 

subject in general terms and another deals 

with a part of the same subject in a more 

detailed way{ the two should be harmonized, 

if possible.' Culver v. Miears, 220 S.W.2d 

200 (Civ.App. 1949, error ref.) 

"'It is a fundamental rule that where the 

general statute, if standing alone, would include the same matter as the special act, and 

thus conflict with it, the special act will 
Mr. Alwln E. Paps!, Page 4 Opinion No. WW-1379 

I 

be considered f; the exceptlon to the general 

statute, Hallum v. Texas Liquor Control Boar:,‘& S.W.2d 175 (Clv.App. 1942, error 

f ) 

The l;;l’amendment to Article 7333 added the exception 

clause which is: 

“except that where the State or other taxing unit is the successful bidder at the tax 

sale, all charges due newspapers for the publishing of citations and notices of sheriff’s 

sale &all be paid by the county and State 

and other taxing 

taxes adjudicated 

added.) 

In view of this new liability Imposed by the 1951 amendment, 

the repealing Section7 this amending Act, which states 

“A.11 laws and parts of laws in conflict 

with this Act are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict”, 

Elearly refers to prlor laws which prohibited 1iabl;lty of the 

. . . county and State and other taxing units. . . for these 

newspaper charges. In other words, the laws repealed must be 

restricted to those laws which would conflict with the new relief granted by this amendment. Also, this construction harmonizes the emergency provisions of the amending Act, being 

Sec. 4, which states 

“The fact that existing statutes do not 

provide for the payment of such charges, 

creates an emergency. . .‘I. 

Again, this provision when limited in its reference to the new 

relief granted by thls Act, and to the existing statutes and 

the fact that they did not provide for liability of “the county 

and State and other taxing units” for these charges is literally 

correct. 

If these newspaper charges are restricted to payment by the 

Legislature only they would be discriminated against by having to 

wait until the next session of the Legislature, and further by 

beiilg made contingent upon an appropriation by a subsequent Leglslature for their payment. 
Mr. :ilwin E. Pape, page 5 Opinion No, WW-1379 

But the evident purpose Was to grant some kind of preference 

in gapmcnt of these charges. This td?s by means of the additicnal 

lia i ity for their payment, This purpose is clearly stated 

In .ittorney General Opinion No. V-1453 (1952) which states that 

.\rt. 7333 

!I 

. . . was passed to ameliorate the 

hardship that might sometimes result from 

the long delay in the collection of publication costs where one of the taxing units 

became the purchaser at the first sale. . . .' 

(underscoring added). 

That opinion further stated with reference to the new liability 

.;mposed by the 1951 amendment to Art. 7333 

1, that 

of S&at; Bill r7 

rlor to the enactment 

31, Acts 52nd Leg., 

R.S. 1951, ch. 334, p. 576, amending 

A~.tlcle 7333, V.C.S., there was no law 

that made the State or county liable for 

publication costs in delinquent tax suits. . . .' 

-_---_-. 

In so far as the following prior opinions of the Attorney 

General ma conflict with this o lnlon, they are overruled: 

Nos. o-643( (lg45), o-6352 (19457, o-3089 (1941). 

anti O-1593 (i939). 

o-1695 (1940) 

These conflicts arise because of amendments 

to Jrts. 7333 and 7345b, Section 9, subsequent to these opinions. 

SUMMARY 

1. One to whom newspaper charges for publishing cltations and notices of sheriff's sale in suits 

for delinquent ad valorem taxes are due may lnvoke the provisions of Art. 7333 and make claim 

to the Leglsloture for payment of his charges; 

or such publisher may wait until the land Is 

sold by the taxing units who purchased it at 

delinquent ad valorem tax foreclosure sale 

for payment of his charges under Art. 73&b, 

Section 9. 
MI-. Alwin E. Pape, page 6 Opinion No. W-1379 

2. No county can pay the proportionate part of 

these newspaper charges imposed by Art. 7333 

upon the State. 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

AttoFney -General of Texas 

W. E. Allen 

Assistant 

WEA: rk 

.iPPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE: 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

Gordon Zuber 

Bob Patterson 

Frank Booth 

Pat Bailey 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: Leonard Passmore