OFFICE OF THE A~ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

AUSTIN



### Hon. Oeo. H. Sheppard COiSPwOuOr Or Pub110 AOOOPatO 

### Comptroller

## 0r Pub110Aeootmts 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 thedefendants,jointlyand 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 

### Itspetition.

“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 aonsiaereda stipulation filed as a raoord payer and as evldenas in t.h,s 

### oaeeand other 

### evidence of&red, as well aa argument of oouuael, and find8 that up to the time of the maicIngof 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 

### reooverof and from the defendantsthe 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 substantialsupportthereror
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 

### thesedare&- ants for delinquent 

### tax for the years 1940 **and** 1$&l, on 

### the propertiesinvolvedin 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 Courtthatthe State or Teraodo have and recoverof the defendant88. J. Porter, Crown Central Petroleum Corporation and the Republio National 

### Bank, jointlyend aererall~ the ma Qt SixteenBuadred Blne and 38/1GO Dollar8 

### ($l&O9.38), togetherwith sir per cent 

### (6$)interestper annum thereontill 

### 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 

### agrssmentbetween 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, Sectian56; ConstltutiXl* Art1010 YlII, Seotion 1.
Also, 

### Artiols340, 

### 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 

### partyshalloperateto 

### prrjudiosthe rightsof the State."



### 30 feelbound,however,to followthe 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 

### aomparcthe 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 plaintiffby attorney, 

### end the defendants also 

### aD>eamedby attornsy, and announced ready lOr trial, when thawtollowing 

### 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 

## orin 

## 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 muohstronger 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 

### herereoltss that 

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

### the agroenontla 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 SgreeSLOAti8 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,ndcmo 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., 

### sovereignrob is now bound would be. Ha 148 3. ‘#I. (2dEon. Gee. R. 3heppard, pail;8

### 5

Wenext take up the question of whether the distriot oourt had jurisdiotion to deoree the type of roller *#hiohwas 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 madeby 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 firasno 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 maybe oorreotsd by reducing the valimtion aooording to some mathematioal formula. %Iehave 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 domaatiooourtsof generaljurisdiotlon. GaabloT. Bannsper,137Tex. 7, 151 3. '5.(26)586;Corbattt. State,153 3. Y. (2d)664,writ or errorrotused. 

### The-oourts of this Statehave astablishrdthe general 

### rule that la order



### ror a judgaaatto be oollaterally’attaokad suoooasfully, the 

### ;;",Fdmust affimatiraly 

### ahor on ita raoo a la&k or jurisdio-

. Sin00 thereoord praaentedharedoeanot affinuatirely showthat the valuation 

### was not 

### reduoedaooordtigto SW mathematioalformula,wa mat presumethat the 

### trial oourt 

### pursuedthismathod.

20 oonsideraazt the 

### pointraisedas to whethertha judgment properly desoribod 

### the land invalvadharein, ainoe 

### it rarelydesoribedthe lend a8 *propertydesoribed ia plaintirf's

petition.N The relerenoe 

### oonatituteda legal

. deaoription

providedthe petitionsufrioiently dasoribedtha laud. Martinv. Paal, 29 9. W. 691;Warm t. Bank, 

### 239 9. W. 277;XooreY. 

### UakhowaEairs ot Gilchrist,273 S. W. 308. The patitloaia dasoribiagthe land makes rereraaoo 

### to other instrumanta in the chain ot titl8, 

### thus incorporating the 

### deaoription used in suoh other instrmonts. 

### 1092 (Conlm. Soheller1. Groeabeok,231 3. ':'* 67 3. ..ipp.); Klein '1.

HumbleOil & RaflningCO., 7. (26)911, attlmad, 126 Tex, 450, 86 3. :X.(28)1077. '?'a understand 

### thepoint rained to 

### relateto themethod of deaoriptionrather than 

### to~whather of not the landwas validlyaad aotually desoribed. 

### qt Is our opinionthat the method 

### used Ia **valid,** but 

### we do notpm upon 

### whether or not 

### the laxld was am~oanly deaorfbed, m na are not in possession of oopies ot the 

### inotru,za~ts

referredto in the petition. f



### Xa note 

### thatthe judgmentprovide8 ror 

### the taxingof oosta 

### of courtagainstthe State. ThIaportionIs void. Artlola7333,V. 

### A. C. S.; Grant 

### v. 61118, 50 3. X. (2d) 1093 (coma.App.),aa;l none ol the 

### taxingunits Inrolvadahould pay any part 0r 

### the oosts

## or oourt. 

### ,_:

You are advisedthereforethat the judgment 

### In the oaso underoonalderation here

## is not aubjeat to oollateral 

### attaak,asidefrom the provision as to oourt oosts), and the Gomptrollar of 

### Pub110Looouhtashould issue a redemption reoeipt in oonfomity therewith.

Yaum very truly