OFFICEOFTHEATTORNEY aENERALOFTEXAS

AUSTINHonombla Paul T. Halt, Page &

approxiiuately

$40per acre, by the awnerawho aotuallyaade their rendition,but from tlm to the, landhas baconis less raluabls~

on these surveys and hare all been rsduoed to from #lo to $30 per aore, and eo aooeptrd by the County Board OS Xquallaatlon. Now, the owners an4 holders of these said z59O.S9 aorao want to olaar the taxes **on** the extra **S4.89** awes. **0an** the couuty Commissionerscourt order the Tax Oolleotor to oolleot on a smiler talus for eaah yearwhioh, in theirjudgment, theywould think to he tair and just both to ths gtato and County and to the Taxpayerf

. . .

In the evant that the aourt aan not graat i?ria;onablo**raw,** WhlOb in their jullgsent, they bellera to be fair te all oonOernb&, then la event that the aatate haa more owners than one, as t& oasonrightbe, like this 0116, would tlm **Tax**Collector be **pwmltted** to oolleot in equal proportfonto eaoh heir or 

### ownerof the part or Interestwhfoh ha right own in the origlxml grant an&~1st the other6 pay theira at a later time+?

“The iaot that thin landwe6 randem a8 miknowu Owner*for the80 years and not rendered by ths owmr, xould that give the Arsaa6or and Colleotor or Comulsslonera Court any right to reduoe the value, li they found tho value was too high for aatdyear$? tmti& the Court taks under oonsi6eratlonthe faot that Sor revere1 years the Vnknom roll*waa hlghar thau the arlginal asseesmsnt,would they have the r**?** ht to Qireet the Tax Assessor an& Collsctor **tb Qo**  loot **on the**  **Ilam** average

perloxu cm t&o *uuknowuRoll’ aa was aooeptedby the Board of mpaliastlon on the rsgular aesssso,d

roll, if the land was the 6a5e Quality?*

We bava made a furtbsr investigation oi the igOt in this OBSO, 4iId We find th4t th0 OWUBE Of this land zWIdered it each year lo quastlon by giving only the “abetreat number”

, the nane ot the %rigloal grantee", the waOrss

### 75:

Eonorablc Faul T. Holt, Page 3

rendered*and the "value*of the land. The *abstraotnunbervwas nutuber

84, and that number applies to the entire SantiagoDelValle Survey of 44,eBO aore8. During the first iew year8 or the period involved th18 owner rendered the tract as 545 aores, but during the lateryear8 of this periodrhc rendered It as S31 sorer, the d~oreaee being due to the raot that about 14 aorc8 had been sold to other ptirtlea.

We al80 68ocrtaIneC that the Tax Asrca8or-Collector of TravIa Countykept an abstraat book In aocordanoe with Articles 7195 and 7190 Of the Revised CIvIl Statutea, and that it contained a reoord or the SantiagoDel valle survey and ahowed that It oontalned tan laague8, that 18, 44,f230 aores. We found that eeoh year he oaloulated the total number of aorta renderedby rarlous owners In this 8urvey, and rubtreated this total from the number of aOre In the survey, to-wit, 44,SSO acres, and thereby dctewlned the number of aorae of the survey thatwas not oa the tax roll8 In the name or the known ownexc. ThIc nu&ber of aortawas plaoedon the roll as one Itcn of unrendered and uukuown property, the owner being designateda8 %nknown owner-, the property not being desorIbedor desiguated ln any maaner exoept that it was In the SantiagoDel valle Survey. The Tat Asseseor-CollaotoradvI8cs u8 that thI8 exoc88 oonsI8tedor approzinatelyROOO aorta, and that the 54.59 nor88 In que8- tion Is a part or this unrcndercd 6x0~88. ~,~

At the outsetwe are oonironteil with the question
or whether or not the owner aan be oon8idcredas rendering -thewhole tract of 399.99 nom8 or only a fradtlonor 8aId tract, to-wit, S4!5/399.S0 of said tract.

. We bcllere that only a fraction of said traotwas rendered. Itodescriptionwe8 givenwhereby the apcoltlc traot oould be oonsideredas haring been rendered. The ouly thing renderedWas 345 aores, and that particular 345 acre8 is not iaentiried. The taxpayer In the 0880 oannot OoxplaIn of a raultg or lnsufrieientdeeoriptlonbeoause she furniehed it and oannot be xlsled by It. Dormanv. gtate, (Tax.Clv. App.) 85 s. Y?.(Ed)m52; Cooper Survey Companyv. CItq or Waoo, (Tex.Clv.App.) 71 S, 'A.619; andMcRIokle v. RoOhelle, (Tex. Civ. App.) ll?@ 9. W. 94.

We believe that Article 710g of the RevisedCivil Statutes was Intendedto apply in a oaac of this kind. That article reads as r0llow8:Zoner-ble Paul '1.fiolt, Page 4

*.Xact assaseor,when he shall hare nmde the asses&xent oi his couuty for eaah yeeer, shall, on the first day of June of each year, or as soon theretatter

as practicable,oarry rroa each person*8 aaseesk.ent

the nuubar of aore and its value on each survey of lands, lots or blocks to that particular survey, tot or blook touud on the ab8trclOt books provided in hrticler, 7196, 7197, and 7806 and all the partsor each surrey **or** block placed
on said abstraot books shallbe a oredlt to the
assessor on that pareloular survey. Said asaeasor shall deduct the totalnlllaber of aams rendered oh eaoh survey or blook from the total number of
acres OS thewhole eurve~ or block as 1s showu **by** eaid abstrmt; and, if any part is left uhrendered, then he shall asseas the la&e to the owneror OWWTB thereof, It known, aad, if unknown, then to *unknown owner8,* and the value thereor shall. **be** afilsed **by him,**  sanotiouedby the board of e~uaLizatioa;provided, that the 

### materor ovmers of any surveyand grant of laudmay shou that the survey and grant tiwhlah they are interested does not coctaia the full oomplementOS aOre shoring how mny acres are in raat mbraoed wit& the oalls of the partloular sway and grant.-

We have not found any mperted crassoonstru%ng tbie statutewith referenoe to the questionat hand. & trying to arrive et itsmeaningwe uhauldbear in mlub t&t Artlols **7mb** takea @are or the ordinary 8ituatlonwhere the ownershIpet a pieor of land is iurknopm.Direotion there is for th6 e#mbsaQr to list the ownerehlp of the property a8 %nkww5* in asseaoing It tar 

### taxe8. When it Is borne in ilnd thatArtisle 7108 was not tnteadeda8 a repetitionof Article 7206, butwas meant to cover a different situation, ltameaningbecomes olsar. The abstraot book in the oifioe ol'ths asseiubor

showing a survey to oontaln a gironnumber oi amets, the burden is upon B&B to se8 that suah survey Is filled lu with rendition# corarih,: that number ot Bores In the survey. It suoh reudttiQIt8 do not oover the

s ul.L

number of **aOrQs**thw shown in the abstraot book to be In the awep, there rasiains a balanoe to be assewed by the aweasor. And, awnerrr o? piews of a swey would be bouud **to take**  notlee OS all thl8. The iaot that the renditionsdo not lnoludo a oufiloleEtnumber of aerea to iill.out the surrey aoaordfng to tbnr abetraot bookwould put any such owner on notioe that he may have allHonorable f*sul T. Holt, Page 5

or a part of the excess, and that if he does have it 16 eubjeot to the additionalasseaementwhloh the awewor Is required to make. The above Article 7198negatives the idea that the recdltloaof the tract In question,glrlug the quantityas 345 cores, must be taken to cover the whole interest in tha tract,whloh It Ls now ahom oontalns 599.59
acrea.

We uow pass to the queatlonas to whether the assessmnt of the balanoe of the survey eaohyear to the %ukuown owner"wes valid, or whether the undivided 54.39
acrea in question atands in the poaitlonof never hating been essesred.

We olted ease8 above holding thatwhen the taxpayer furnishes the description In the mmdltlon and aasea8- llient hat he oanuot oomplain on the ground that the demerlptlon la faulty or lnauftlolent;but a8 far a6 thir ex0e88 of 54.39 aarea In thl8 traot is ooneered we believe that the rule stated in the oass of Boase f. Stone, (Tex. Sup. Ct.) 64 %x. 677, epplles. Sn that aase the **land** in **quee** tlon had been ameased by the State against au Wakuown owner," and the oourt held the assersnumt InvalId beoauw the list end aaoesamentraiLed to identify the land in questioc, and the oourt said:

"'.

. . 7ha lot6 of landmast be deflnltely and dlatlnotly deoeribed,and par01 proof cannot supply tba detiofenoy In tha descriptlolt or bouudariee. These muat be aaoertalnedfroa, what lawritten. The question la not ohe of Intention, but one of feat--what did the assessors do? WhIoh ia the spetiia lot on which the tax is laid? Theee queat1on.a

must be anarered from; the reaord.**

The aswssment in thla a,a8e would be egalust 54.N aore& 15 said traot **of 399.89.**  Said 54.39 acres aaunot be ldentliledexcept es being an umlirlded part of aald S99.39
acre tract; butwe belleve that Artlele 7198 authorizes auoh
au asseesaent 3x1

a ease like t&Is.

The prmedure for such reawemment would be uhder krtlcles 7348 **and** 7547 of the Revised ~1~11 Statutee. Artlole **7946** reads aa iollowm:

### 554.

Honorable Paul.

T. Halt, Pa@ 6

"Whenever any CodSSiXWrs cant shall discover through nctice Iron;the tax colleator
or otherwise that any real propertyhas been omitted frm the tax rolls for any year or years since lEFX, or shall find that acg previous asaesamente on any reel propertyfor the years mentioned are invalid, or have been declared Invalid for any reason by any district oourt In a suit to enforce the aolleatlonor taxes
on said properties, theymay, at anymeeting or the Court, order a list or such propertierto be made In triplioate and fix a compansatlon therefor; the said list to show a o+mplete description or such propertiesand forwhat years auoh propertieswere omitted tram the tax rolls, or 

### forwhat years the aseesmieotaare round to be invalidand ehould be oancellsd and re-aaseeaed, or to have been declared Invalid and thereby camellea by any district court in
a rult to snroroe the oolleotIonor taxes. Ro reasseaannt of any property ehallbe held against any Innooent purahaaarof the aam if the tax records of any ooumty fall to ahow any assessment (forany year 80 re-assessed)by which said, property oan be ldentlrledand that the taxes ara mpald. The above exoeption,with the
same limitation, 8hall 818s apply as to all past +~~;t;rWd18trlot uourta aanoeling, Invalid

. Artlole 9549 reads. in part as r0u0wr: *Whensaid list ha% been so rpede up the eommlfclalonere

court may,
. . . refer 8uch lfat or properties to be assessed or rsaraseesed to the tax as8e68or who 8hall prOO%sd at Onoe to nrake an aaaessment of all mid pZOpartI%s,

. . .and when aompleted shall submit the 8-e to the oomaiasloners court,who shall pass upon the valuatIona

### tired by hImi 6nd,when approved 861to the value8, 8hall cause the taxes to be computed and extendedat the tax rate in eflett for each separateyear mentioned In said list; and, In additionthereto, shall cause to be added 

### a penalty equal la amount towhat would be six per oent interestto the date
or ffieiklng

rald~llat rrom the d&te such groperties would have been delinquenthad same been properly redered by the owner thereof at the time and for the years stated in said list;

. . .*

### 7s

Rouorable Paul T. Bolt, Pase 7

In view or the roregoingdiscussion,we believe that it Ie urmeoeeearyto answer the other questiona in your Inquiry.

Our anetwr can be sufmasrlzed as followsI 0&p 345 acres of’the land in question was renderedby the owner. Under Artiole 91Qi3 the Aaeersor-aollectorhas authority to assetxzi

in the rmrie

of an *uakaowaownera any exoees In a survey;and upon dleocvsry that this particularlandowner owned part ot this excess such excess ownedby her oan be assessedagainst her under the prooedurepresorlbetl In Art101os 9346 and 9349. Suoh aasessaent ehimldbe or an ondivi6eQ 54.39 acre6 In said 399.39 aore tract.

Youra very truly

FIRS? ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL CCR:%w