OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTl%l 

GR~~~~SELLERS 

A,.y~~~~~ GLNLRAL 

gonorable A. 0. Mueller 

county Attorney 

Llano county 

~a, Texas 

459 i 

Dear Sir: Opinion no. O-6708 

rrom this Department is as follovs 

%le county Coamllss 

County has requested me 

and AR!PICL? 7218 of the 

to-Board af 41x11 

it as a board 

in Pay of each 

cable WORE 

the assessment 

ir counties 

7218-m & pert: ?Phe Assessor 

ubmlt a.ll the llfstr of propert rento the first Monday Jn June to 

izatlon of his county on the first 

or as soon. thereafter as practicable, 

ectloa, approval, correction or equall- 

',U&dder the above two statutes- Is It Imperative 

that the Board of equalisagion meet 'On the second 

Monday in I&y of each Tear, or a8 soon thereafter as 

practicable BEFORE the first day of June’ or can the 

Board of.4ualizatlon meet on the. 'First Monday in 

June or aa soon thereafter as practicable?' 
.:orsrable A. G. !Sueller, pw 2 

nIt'would seem that the firat Artlole above 

quoted requires the i3oard oi tqualization to met 

Em?i% the firat day of June, and then ooatinue by 

additional meetings, after adjournments, until the 

assessment lists have been inspeoted, SpprOVed, 

oorreoted or equalized. I would like an opiuion 

in regard to the abov6." 

There is no confliot between Article 7206, V. A. C. S. i

end titiole 7218, V. A. c. 5. Artiole 7206 pertains to the duties 

0: the Comaissioners* Court while aittiug~ as the Board of Xqualization. Xrticle 7218 pertains to the duties of the assessor or . 

i 4 

t3lZSs. 

Since there is no oorfliot batween the two above mentimed Articles, 'we must now analyze Artiole 7206, supra, to 

~itermine the answer t0.you.r inquiry. 'rie ma that WC Tex. Jur. 

133, provides in pert as follower 

RThe first paragraph of the.article provides 

that the board shall sit *on the aeoord Zoadag in 

Xay of each year, or as aoon thareaftar as praotioable before the first day of June;! nevertheless, 

a oontinuation'of proceedings after Juse 1 does not 

render an inoreaee of value nsde .after that date a 

nullity." 

in Crahm vs. Lasater, (oiv. xpp.) 26 2. 3. 472, the 

court in a di5OUfdGn of Article 1517a, 1 Sayles'Civ. St. (now 

titicle 7206, v. A. c. s.; 

differences, 

with the exoegtion of one or two minor 

auoh as the changes in dates)said; 

vi3y the first subdivision of artiolo 1517.6,'~ 

1 Sayles' Civ. St., it is provided: 

coa5issioners* 

'The county 

courts of the severai oounties of 

this state ahall oonvene and sit as a board of 

equalization on the seoond E!ondag in June of eaoh 

3-a-, or a8 soon thereafter as praotioable before 

the 1st day of July, to reoeive all the assessment 

lists or books of the assessors of ttieir counties 

for thair irapeotion, corraotion, equalization, acd 

approval. * It will thus be seen that the gurpoae 

of the seating which is thus required to. be held in 

June is to receive thy lista and books frond the 

asseaaor, and that~ it is n6t ex_=ressly stipulated 

that the iyork of the board in nakin~ tha inspeotion 

aild correction rsquimd of it ahail be OOapb3t3d 
a3cornble A. 0. liiueller, w6e 3 

within the time nti5ea in this aaotion. In the case 

of Swenson v. EoLaren, 2 '28x. Civ. App. 334, 23. S. X. 

309, we quoted with approval somwhat at length frox 

seotion 448 in Sutherland on Statutory Construction, 

where it iaheld that ordinarily ststutas of this 

kihd are, as to the tiine apeoified within i-ihich an 

aot j,.e to be done, only direotory, and do not prevent 

Its perforxanor after the expiration thereof. Xe find 

nothing in this motion of the statuta which leads ua 

to conolude +hat the legislature intended that the 

oo~maissloners~ oourt should n6t only meet in June for 

the purpoee of receiving the lists froa the assessor, 

but should be reatrioted to that month in &ving the 

notioes required to the taxpayer, and in the perfomatioe 

of the duties required of them in hearirg the different 

parties. iie can easily see how, under soxe oiruumstanoes, 

such time would be wholly Inadequate for the purpose I.xIten&id to be aooompliahed. 3e therefore oo.uolude that 

the action of the board of equalization sitting after 

the lat day of July, whloh in this oaae seas to have 

been a continuation of the June meting, is not for 

that reason a nuJ.lity.W 

IE view of the foregoing it is our opinion that the provisio.-,s of Article 7296, supra, as to the tim apeoifica withb 

..:.ioi the Coaoiaeionera~ Court shall convene arid sit as a board 

ai" squelization am direotory, but if the Comisaionera* Court 

Lees hot met as an equalization board within the desiaeted 

ti::.e, it should convene as .soon thereaftar as practicable. 

:;'a call your attelition to the fact that the Comniosioners~ 

Zo:irt should avoid a= 'ucI?ecessary delse In tha performmoe of 

this tiportant duty in order that ~tha business affairs of the 

coiL'rty and state nay be adxinistsred in an orderly oalinex,and: 

t%e zi&ts of all parties oonoerned .my be protected. 

Pours very truly,