**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

rromthis Department is as follovs

%le county Coamllss County has requestedme 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.llthe llfstr of propert ren**to** the first Monday Jn June to izatlon of his county on the first
or as soon.

thereafter as practicable, ectloa, approval, correctionor equall-

',U&dder the above two statutes- Is It Imperative that the Board of equalisagionmeet 'On the second Monday in I&y of each Tear, or a8 soon thereafteras practicableBEFORE the first day of June’ or can the Board of.4ualizatlon meet on the.'FirstMonday in June or aa soon thereafteras 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** additionalmeetings,after adjournments,until the assessmentlists have been inspeoted,SpprOVed, oorreotedor equalized. I would like an opiuion in regard to the abov6."

There is no confliotbetweenArticle 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 oorfliotbatween the two above mentimed Articles, 'we must now analyze Artiole 7206, supra, to ~iterminethe answer t0.you.r inquiry. 'rie

ma that WC Tex. Jur. 133, provides in pert as follower

RThe first paragraphof the.articleprovides that the board shall sit *on the aeoord Zoadag in Xay of each year, or as aoon thareaftaras praotioable before the first day of June;! nevertheless,
a oontinuation'of

proceedingsafter Juse 1 does not render an inoreaeeof valuensde .afterthat 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 subdivisionof artiolo 1517.6,'~ 1 Sayles' Civ. St., it is provided: coa5issioners* 'The county

courts of the severai oountiesof this state ahall oonvene and sit as a board of equalizationon the seoondE!ondag in June of eaoh 3-a-, or a8 soon thereafteras praotioablebefore the 1st day of July, to reoeive all the assessment lists or books of the assessorsof ttieir counties for thair irapeotion,corraotion,equalization,acd approval.

* It will thus be seen that the gurpoae of the seatingwhich 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 OOapb3t3da3cornbleA. 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 quotedwith approval somwhat at length frox seotion 448 in Sutherland on Statutory Construction, where it iaheld that ordinarily ststutasof this kihd are, as to the tiine apeoifiedwithin i-ihich an aot j,.e to be done, only direotory,and do not prevent Its perforxanorafter the expiration thereof. Xe find nothing in this motion of the statuta which leads ua to conolude+hat the legislatureintended that the oo~maissloners~

oourt should n6t only meet in June for the purpoee of receivingthe lists froa the assessor, but shouldbe 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 continuationof 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" squelizationam direotory,but if the Comisaionera* Court Lees hot met as an equalizationboard within the desiaeted ti::.e, it should convene as .soonthereaftaras practicable.

:;'a callyour attelition to the fact that the Comniosioners~ Zo:irt should avoid a= 'ucI?ecessary delse In tha performmoe of this tiportantduty in order that ~tha businessaffairs of the coiL'rty and state nay be adxinistsredin an orderlyoalinex,and: t%e zi&ts of all parties oonoerned .my be protected.

Pours very truly,