Hon. Amos Harper Opinion No. V-973. County Attorney Gaines county Re: Striking delinquent tax entries Seminole, Texas made prior to determination land in another county.
Dear Sir:
We quote the following excerpts from your letter of October 17, 1949:

“I respectfully request your opinion concerning
a problem of taxation that confronts the Tax Assessor and Collector 

### of thie County and upon which I have been unable to locate any legal authority sufficient to enable
me to advise that officer.

“There is contained in the files of **your** office, Opinion No. O-1125, addressed toAlton T. Freeman, then County Attorney of Games County, which was approved by Gerald C. Mann, Attorney General, on August 31, 1939.

“This opinion, and the opinion request from which it quotes, recites an involved fact situation which occurred several years ago and which had the effect of either relocating or moving the North line of Gaines County South from the point along which it originally
was thought to run. As a result of those facts, certain sections along the North line of the County which apReared to be in Gaines County according to the official Gaines County map prepared by the General Land Office, dated March, 1922, which is that office’s latest map of this County, apparently ceased to be in Gaines county.
“Under authority of what is now Article 7194, R.C.S., 1925, the 

### General Land 

### Office ofTexas hadpreviously furnished our Tax **Assessor** and Collector with abotracta of the **surveys** of land in thfs County and those abstracts showed these northern surveys to be in 

### Gaines County. Accordingly, they were listed on the tax rolls and taxes were levied and assessed as to them by GainesHon. Amos Harper, Page 2 (v-973)

“As a further y.esu(t 02 such moving of our North boundary line, our Northeast corner of the County ia further south than what is recognized, for tax purposes, to be the Northwest corner of Dawson County, whereas, according to the Act of the Legislature prescribing
our boundaries, the two corners are supposed to be one and the same. (Act ofAugust 21, 1876, page 234.) “Upon the strength of the above mentioned opinion of the then Attorney General, a suit was filed which involved, under the pleadings, a challenge to the validity of the action which moved, or attempted to move, the boundary **south.** This r,uitwas never tried upon its merits, but a demurrer to such petition was sustained by the trial **court,,** such action being sustained by a subsequent action of the Supreme Court of Texas tobe found in the case of YOAKUM COUNTY, ET AL, VS. GAINES COUNTY, 163 S.W. Znd, 393. The opinion of the Court of Civil 

### Appeals in this, case gives more details 

### of the matters of fact and law involved.’
“There are on the Delinquent Tax Roll of this County a number of entries showing delinquent taxes due to the State, **County** and **other** taxing units whose taxes were collected by that officer, upon these lands .for years prior to the moving of this line **south, or**  its relocation, as you may please **to** call it.

“In the light of the.se facts, will you please favor
me with your opinion as to the answers to the following questions :

**‘ FII(ST**  - By what procedure, if at all, may the Tax **As ’** **sessor** of this County strike the above mentioned e&r&a of delinquent taxer from his delinquent tax roll?

“SECOND

-’If he may not strike them from his delinquent tax roll, then what effect, if any, does the above mentioned relocation of the county line have upon the right of myself, **or** the delinquent tax attorney of this county, to prosecute an ordinary delinquent tax suit to foreclose the tax lien upon these lands for nonpayment of such taxes 7*Hon. 

### Amos Harp*, P4gm 3 (V-973)

Tti apinion of the Supreme Court in the Yoakum Coant CM*, abovo-eited, 4ummarizes the allegations oftie petition &cari; G4ines County in the ~suitwhich was instituted against Yoakurn8*r Terry,C&mtias to set aaide the boundary line surveyed by A. L. Harris in 1935 and agreed toby each of the counties acting thrw4gh its commissioners’ **court** and its county court. Plaintiff’s praymr was that the **court** adjudge the north line of Gaines County tob4 th4 lint as surveyed by Col. D. S. Woods in 1900 or in the alterntive that the north boundary be along certain survey lines enu

### merated in the petition or in the alternative that the court fix “the true boundary 11114 ,between the plaintiff and the defendant counties.”
Th+ opinion points out that the field notes of the Woods 11~. run in 1900. before 

### any of the three cbunties were organiaed, w44 **not mark4**  on the ground as required by law and .that the calls in th4 field net44 

### l how wt there is 

### room for doubt as to the location on tA4 

### grow4 of the **Wooda** line. Further, it was alleged that th4 south line of cert4in surveys were treated by the coanties as **be** ial the boundary tiim and that as between Gaines **County and**  Terry 

### County a portion bftheboundary line was **conaidcred,** 

### tobe along the

### l outhline of Block D **of** another **aurve$.** But, said **th court,**  if
was not allcged that this line is oaithe Woods line.



### Tha court firat upheld the power of the commissionarr’ **courts** and theceunty courtm to cntcr into 

### abinding agreement as to tba beu&ry lint stating that since countias have tha **power** to litig&e **boundary** disputes they have the power to settle them out of **court** so long as thay do **not** violatc 

### any provision 

### ofthe Constitution. Gaines County contended that **Article** IX, Section 1; Subdivision 

### 3d th4 Texas Constitution 

### hadbaaan violated. **A** portion of that 

### subdivirisn~provideo +t nopart of

### l y existing county shall be detach4d **from** iband +tt&chad to anothet kxisting county’until th4 prop

### osition **for** 

### such chaqe shall have 

### beei submitted toa‘vot6 ofth4 slectors of **both** counties and shall hava received 

### a majority ofthose voting **on** the question in 

### each county. The contantionwas rejected, **and** tha 

### court said 

### l t:pge 397:


### “There is nothing in the 

### raeord to show tha&t it ~4s the‘plrpesc 

### of the three cax~&ics, in enterin the forog4ing **ndar,** to detach lad ~TQ#I one county whose 

### l 44ad4r7 Uy@# ware already a4*yl+hed, and attach l**utm** t4 

### l

**YY other**  **county. Oo** * contrary, it cleably 

### lp pa ara

Ilb*t the sole purpeti was to definitely fix 

### theundefined **boundary** line between the three counties. Y

. . .



### ‘The allegations contained in 

### respondent’s patiti4n clearly show that the boundary line betwean Gaince

### mn, Amu mrper‘ hy 4 (V-973)

Cm* andlt+kwn aI* Tekry copntk3 W&aindefidt*, 

### l d t+t theWea **aouatie4** 

### :de8ired todefinitely *ettle **f&d bopndar~**  ibe **between** 

### muchcounties. To t&t end thecommiie$qrr’ **courta** 

### ofthethree counties met tad provided r&au, ia,ectcer+ace with thelaw, tosurvey 9 deftmiyly fix t+S**budary** 

### line **between** 

### thethree
counttea. 

### PHU to~thetime in 1935wben thethree coantier provi&d,e metA* fat &~eemta&lis*eat ofsuch **betm+ry** 

### lip; there aLted in the dnindd 

### ofthethree c~brieura’~cmts aniasu offact, endthey **pmaed** 

### tke’fore@iaq uder, which ecttlod thetfact aa between “y+” ‘

. Shoe m territory WEE**detached** 

### frem CieineeCouaty es a rosdt $ thel

### fzeerrert 4Jí o r+ l

### tte eked inthis suit, peceroerily tb,l+w rp nst.dieh yeut &linqup tucrolir ahow delinquent w,ier wire”ner& withis tiinee County &ndshould never hevc been 

### oii *be?Co*aty,CU

*eil*, Tbid being So, fhe l rperrment qftaqea aput thue kbde wad invalid,

.

Arfieler 7146 airl.7347, **V.C&** 

### prescribe theprocedure

### Hon. AMOS Harper, page 5(v-973)

.:i am3Articles 7346 and 7347, V.C.S., are applicable. The Comptroller .provides Certificate of Cancellation forms. After said Certificates have been duly approved, the Tur Assessor and Collector may record the cancellations cmhis rolls. 

### The Comptroller will send list of 

### l~nrls erroneously assessed to tax assessor of proper county, Art. 7353, V.C.S., and said lands may then **be** back assessed for taxes by the tax assessor of the proper county, Art. 7207, V.G.S.

**Yours very**  **truly**


### ATTORL’JEYGENERALOFTEXAS

Mrs. Marietta McGreg

Assistant

FIRST ASSlSTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL