OFFICE OF THE A~ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Hon. Oeo. H. Sheppard 

COiSPwOuOr Comptroller 0r Or Pub110 Pub110 Aeootmts AOOOPatO 

Austin, Taxas 

; 

Dear 'Yr. Sheppard: 

styled cause. 

was taken on Oat. 

attorneys of record heroin, that an agreement oi set)leclent had been xe3.e of all aontrorerted lseuea involved 

herein, euoh agreement, however, being subjeat to this 

Court*a approval, aaid agreement oi settlement having 

been ontered Into b? the Comissioners Court ox' Jackson 

County, .?exss, sotin:< for and In behalf qf plaintiff, 

zmi the indivi:Iual teiendants acting in heir owu proper 

behalf. 
Zen. @eo. Ii. Sheppard, page 2 

*Thnt by thti term of said agraemant to 

settle this wit, the plaintif'f shall have and recover 

of the defendants, jointly and severally the stm of 

Sixteen Buadrea Aine and 38/100 Dollars [$1609.38), 

together with six per oent (6$~) interest per aMum 

thereon tron this date until; paid, in full aatiafaotion 

of its asserted olairn agalust all of the defendants In 

this oauo, as set out more fully in Its petition. 

“That plalntirr haa a lien scouring the abova 

amount o? this juagmmt whloh shall be roreelossd by 

judgnent of this Court on the properties desoribed in 

plaintittvs petition. 

“The Court heard all pleading8 filed in this-’ 

oase read and duly aoneidered sama. The Court then 

heard and aonsiaered a stipulation filed as a raoord 

payer and as evldenas in t.h,s oaee and other evidence 

of&red, as well aa argument of oouuael, and find8 that 

up to the time of the maicIng of the agreement to settle 

the disputed zaatter in this oauae, there existed a real 

aontroversial issue between the plaintiff and these 

defendants as ts the issue of whether the plaintiff wa8~ 

entitled to reoover of and from the defendants the amtut 

or ita asserted olaix lnvolred in this law twit, which 

aonaisted of a claim for delinquent tax due for the yea?s 

1940 md 1941, together with interest and penaltiss thdron, as well as aosts thereby aoerusd. That the deSendmta* 

denial or plalntitf’s ri&ht to reoover the amount elaiti 

due it by derendants had a substantial support thereror 

as agalust any amount in exoess of Sixteen Hundred Nine 

and 38/100 Dollars (~$1609.38). 

*The court, therefore, finds the weemsnt 80 

made by and between the parties hereto, throm the Ca8- 

miasionsre Court of Jaahson County, Texas, and the various 

derendants is and was a fair equitable and reasonable 

settlement as to the amount aotually due by these dare&- 

ants for delinquent tax for the years 1940 and 1$&l, on 

the properties involved in this oause, and suoh agreeant 

is now aade the basis ol this Court’s judgaent.?$S rave? 

of plaintlrr as against these defendants. 
Bon. Geo. fl. Sheppard, page 3 

"It Is, therefore, ORbER3D, &DJUDGED MD 

D.EQBW by the Court that the State or Terao do have 

and recover of the defendant8 8. J. Porter, Crown 

Central Petroleum Corporation and the Republio National 

Bank, jointly end aererall~ the ma Qt Sixteen Buadred 

Blne and 38/1GO Dollar8 ($l&O9.38), together with sir 

per cent (6$) interest per annum thereon till paid.* 

On the faots presented to us, Andy-aa an 

original proposition ve would.be inolined to hold t&a' judgmant 

sntered in this ease void since It la obviously the result or 

a oomproniiso agrssment between the County ;&tommy, the Gomnioslonera Court and the defondantto. Tno Comm.iosionors Court has 

no aowar to relsaae or extlngniah tax llabillty in the mituatlon 

presented here. Constlt~utlon, Article III, Sectian 56; ConstltutiXl* Art1010 YlII, Seotion 1. 

Also, Artiols 340, V. .i. C. 3.. dialarra' 

that: 

Wo adxissions made by the diatriat or oounty 

attorney in any suit or action in whioh the State la a 

party shall operate to prrjudios the rights of the State." 

30 feel bound, however, to follow the ease of 

EoCleaky t. State, J, C, A. 322, 23 S. U. 518, whioh hold an agreed 

judgmnt entered into by a district attorney as a representative 

or the St8te good agahaat ooll.stsral attaok. In order to piitably aomparc the two judgment8 we quote from the judgment aonstrued by the Court of Civil ,.ppsalo in the YcClesky oaae, whioh 

reads as iollows: 

"'This day oame on to be heard the abovsentitled oause, when aame the plaintiff by attorney, end 

the defendants also aD>eamed by attornsy, and announced 

ready lOr trial, when thaw tollowing l greemnt,in writing, 

was submitted to the oourt: Wtate of Texas ex rel. vs. 

3%. C. Fuller et al. To the distriot attorney, J. J. 

Ofiel, and attorneys for relators, Carrigan and Hughes 

and J. P. 3oyd: ?fe, the :mdersfgsed relators in the 

above-named cult, hereby authorize ahd requeat you to 

withdraw our inlor~aticn :n said came, and authorize 

the defendants to take judgmnt, 88 we are setisried 

with the presarit existihg ooramation of wilioh defendalIt 

are ofiioera, and nave no desire to prosecute said suit. 

:,. 3. L:*tsey, ‘2. 1:. :iicis, i. 0. iiragg, 2. '.2. Yertin, 

Xelators 13 th6 ;,bove-Zamd Suit." ALI the court, 
?ion. Coo. 8. Sheppard, paga 4 

having inapsotad t&s same, and the district attorney 

representing the state of Texas r&sing no objection 

thereto, proceeda to render judgmant in aooordanoe 

therewith. It is therefore ordered, adjudged and 

decreed by the co?tPt that the relie3 sought by plaintiff in this atit, to wit, a dissolution of the in-. 

oorporation oi the towu of Iowa Park, Texas, be, aad 

hereby Is, refused, and that said plaintiff take 

nothfnq by.thda suit. It is rurtber ordered that the 

defendants, H. C. Puller, aayor, ii. 0. Cottrell, 

Riarohal, and R. s. SlIma, c. ;1. Orr, W. Gibson, George 

Ligon, and E. A. Maaleakey? es aldermen of aald town 

of 10wa Park, Texas, end Weir suooessors lnc@fiior, 

go hema without raatraint on their rights to aot as 

ortioera of said town under the prooeedlngs had to 

inoorporate tha aam, and that they and their suooessora 

are hereby daoreed to be legally in posa8saion of aaid 

ofrfoaa undar the aleotlon and other prooeedinga ror 

incorporation complained or in phintirr’8 information. 

It Is further adjubged and deoreed by the court that 

the ooeta or this court be taxed against drrandanta, 

end that the orrioera of oourt hare their exaoution.' 

. . ." 

The instant judgmant preaanta a muoh stronger 

osse for iabmnity from aollatsrel rttaok than does the judpnent 

in the XoCleaky oeae inSOior 08 the agreement teature is oonoerned. Noto that the judgaant under oonaidsretlon here reoltss 

that the coclrt heard other evi~anoe besides tha atlpulrtlon, and 

the agroenont la merely &de the basis oi the court*8 deorae 

after it had~heard all the avldenoe. In other words, on tho 

basis of the eaidenoe, the oourt independently oomea to the same 

oonalusisn reached by the 1itigshtS em! the SgreeSLOAt i8 not 

adopted in toto as the judgaent of the oourt. 

,?lthough hit is quite plain that the trial 

court did tollon the void agreeraent, it nevertheless had Juriadiction oi the oontrorerap. Therefore; afnoe the State aubnitted 

lts8li to the jurisdlotion of-the distriot court, it oaat off its 

ea e,nd cmo in as would an indlrldual litigant, and 

by the judL;ment rendered as an indirlduol litigant 

llroad Commlsaion of Texas Y. 

) 895, writ sf error reioaed. 

:a2xinsas ?uel Gil Co., 

sovereign rob 

is now bound 

would be. Ha 

148 3. ‘#I. (2d 
Eon. Gee. R. 3heppard, pail;8 5 

We next take up the question of whether 

the distriot oourt had jurisdiotion to deoree the type of 

roller *#hioh was granted. The rules relative to the jurisalotion or the distriot court ia the ty>e 0r suit under 

oonsideration are set forth in State f. Biohardson (Comm. 

App.) 84 3. ‘H. (26) 1076, and we quote a portion of that 

deoision as r0ixars: 

aThe real.quration for dealsion here la 

this, Warn the distrlot oourt in thlo prooeeding 

authorized to rtmalue and reassess the property on 

the flndiuge made by the jury and award judgment 

for taxes with interest on aooount of dellnquenoy? 

It is our opinion that in event of a void assessment 

L: the district oourt firas no jurisdiction or per to 

revalue and reassess property and render judgment 

for taxes baaed on such revaluation and reassessment. 

The jurisdiotlon ot the tax aseessor and board or 

equalization is unquestionably exolusivs. state Y. 

Chioago, B. f., ets., R. Co. (Tex. Corn. App.) 263 

the valuea and tares. Li ai 1 B 

$o., lo2 Tax. 545, 120 S.y?t”8;;.i ~%;a;i:?;lbplied) 

It is not apparent from the reoord that the 

assessments made againat the property involved here were void, 

so we assume that the aituatlon presented in the trial court 

was one or over-aasessnent, bringing the oause within the 

exception noted in State v. .Zichardson, supra. This exoeption 

all0ws a dietriot court to reauoe the aaaessmant it it be not 

wholly void and it the matter or dlsorimination may be oorreotsd 

by reducing the valimtion aooording to some mathematioal formula. 

%Ie have been furnished oertlfied ooples of the 9rooeeQlngs in 

this oause but there is no pleading to support the proposition 

that the valuation plaoed. on the property ?nYolYed i:erein was 

double, or lO$, or auy peroentaga hlgimr than surrounding 

property ,>f the same grade. However, the record does not 

aC’inatirely show that such wss not the case, and it does not 

affirnatlvelp show that the trial cnurt qercly substituted ita 

discretion i’or thu disoreti;n ;~t the board of ec.uallzatlon. 
Eon. Coo. E. Sheppard, page 6 

Tax judgxants,are pmtroted fro3 sollateral 

attaok by the acme rules of law governing oolleteral attaok on 

other judgment8 or domaatio oourts of general jurisdiotlon. 

Gaablo T. Bannsper, 137 Tex. 7, 151 3. '5. (26) 586; Corbatt t. 

State, 153 3. Y. (2d) 664, writ or error rotused. The-oourts 

of this State have astablishrd the general rule that la order 

ror a judgaaat to be oollaterally’attaokad suoooasfully, the 

;;",Fd must affimatiraly ahor on ita raoo a la&k or jurisdio- 

. Sin00 the reoord praaented hare doea not affinuatirely 

show that the valuation was not reduoed aooordtig to SW 

mathematioal formula, wa mat presume that the trial oourt 

pursued this mathod. 

20 oonsider aazt the point raised as to 

whether tha judgment properly desoribod the land invalvad harein, ainoe it rarely desoribed the lend a8 *property desoribed 

ia plaintirf's petition.N The relerenoe oonatituted a legal . 

deaoription provided the petition sufrioiently dasoribed tha 

laud. Martin v. Paal, 29 9. W. 691; Warm t. Bank, 239 9. W. 

277; Xoore Y. Uakhowa Eairs ot Gilchrist, 273 S. W. 308. The 

patitloa ia dasoribiag the land makes rereraaoo to other instrumanta in the chain ot titl8, thus incorporating the deaoription 

used in suoh other instrmonts. 

1092 (Conlm. 

Soheller 1. Groeabeok, 231 

3. ':'* 

67 3. 

..ipp.); Klein '1. Humble Oil & Raflning CO., 

7. (26) 911, attlmad, 126 Tex, 450, 86 3. :X. (28) 1077. 

'?'a understand the point rained to relate to the method of deaoription rather than to ~whather of not the land was validly aad 

aotually desoribed. qt Is our opinion that the method used Ia 

valid, but we do not pm upon whether or not the laxld was 

am~oanly deaorfbed, m na are not in possession of oopies ot 

the inotru,za~ts referred to in the petition. 

f 

Xa note that the judgment provide8 ror the 

taxing of oosta of court against the State. ThIa portion Is 

void. Artlola 7333, V. A. C. S.; Grant v. 61118, 50 3. X. (2d) 

1093 (coma. App.), aa;l none ol the taxing units Inrolvad ahould 

pay any part 0r the oosts or oourt. 

,

You are advised therefore that the judgment 

In the oaso under oonalderation here is not aubjeat to oollateral 

attaak, aside from the provision as to oourt oosts), and the 

Gomptrollar of Pub110 Looouhta should issue a redemption reoeipt 

in oonfomity therewith. 

Yaum very truly