OFFICEOFTHEATTORNEY aENERALOFTEXAS 

AUSTIN 
Honombla Paul T. Halt, Page & 

approxiiuately $40 per acre, by the awnera who 

aotually aade their rendition, but from tlm to 

the, land has 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 

Commissioners court order the Tax Oolleotor to 

oolleot on a smiler talus for eaah year whioh, 

in their judgment, they would 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& oaso nright be, like this 0116, 

would tlm Tax Collector be pwmltted to oolleot 

in equal proportfon to eaoh heir or owner of the 

part or Interest whfoh ha right own in the origlxml 

grant an&~ 1st the other6 pay theira at a later 

time+? 

“The iaot that thin land we6 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 aatd year$? tmti& the Court taks under 

oonsi6eratlon the 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 

a ver a ge p er l oxu cm t&o *uuknowu Roll’ aa was aooepted by 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 *abstraot nunberv was nutuber 84, and that number applies to the entire 

Santiago Del Valle 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 later year8 of this 

period rhc 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 County kept an abstraat book In aocordanoe 

with Articles 7195 and 7190 Of the Revised CIvIl Statutea, 

and that it contained a reoord or the Santiago Del 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 rendered by 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 that was not oa the tax roll8 

In the name or the known ownexc. ThIc nu&ber of aorta was 

plaoed on the roll as one Itcn of unrendered and uukuown 

property, the owner being designated a8 %nknown owner-, the 

property not being desorIbed or desiguated ln any maaner exoept that it was In the Santiago Del valle Survey. The Tat 

Asseseor-Collaotor advI8cs u8 that thI8 exoc88 oonsI8ted or 

approzinately ROOO aorta, and that the 54.59 nor88 In que8- 

tion Is a part or this unrcndercd 6x0~88. ~,~ 

At the outset we are oonironteil with the question 

or whether or not the owner aan be oon8idcred as rendering 

-the whole tract of 399.99 nom8 or only a fradtlon or 8aId 

tract, to-wit, S4!5/399.S0 of said tract. 

. 

We bcllere that only a fraction of said traot was 

rendered. Ito description we8 given whereby the apcoltlc 

traot oould be oonsidered as haring been rendered. The ouly 

thing rendered Was 345 aores, and that particular 345 acre8 

is not iaentiried. The taxpayer In the 0880 oannot OoxplaIn 

of a raultg or lnsufrieient deeoriptlon beoause she furniehed 

it and oannot be xlsled by It. Dorman v. gtate, (Tax. Clv. 

App.) 85 s. Y?. (Ed) m52; Cooper Survey Company v. CItq or Waoo, 

(Tex. Clv. App.) 71 S, 'A. 619; and McRIokle v. RoOhelle, (Tex. 

Civ. App.) ll?@ 9. W. 94. 

We believe that Article 710g of the Revised Civil 

Statutes was Intended to 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 parts or each surrey or block place d 

on said abstraot books shall be a oredlt to the 

assessor on that pareloular survey. Said asaeasor 

shall deduct the total nlllaber of aams rendered 

oh eaoh survey or blook from the total number of 

acres OS the whole 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 owner or 

OWWTB thereof, It known, aad, if unknown, then 

to *unknown owner8,* and the value thereor shall. 

be afilsed by him, sanotioued by the board of e~uaLizatioa; provided, that the mater or ovmers of any 

survey and grant of laud may shou that the survey 

and grant ti whlah they are interested does not 

coctaia the full oomplement OS aOre shoring how 

mny acres are in raat mbraoed wit& the oalls 

of the partloular sway and grant.- 

We have not found any mperted crass oonstru%ng 

tbie statute with referenoe to the question at hand. & trying to arrive et its meaning we uhauld bear in mlub t&t Artlols 7mb takea @are or the ordinary 8ituatlon where the 

ownershIp et 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 

that Artisle 7108 was not tnteaded a8 a repetition of Article 

7206, but was meant to cover a different situation, lta meaning becomes olsar. The abstraot book in the oifioe ol' ths 

asseiubor showing a survey to oontaln a giron number 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 renditions do not lnoludo a oufiloleEt number of aerea to iill. out the surrey aoaordfng to tbnr abetraot 

book would put any such owner on notioe that he may have all 
Honorable f*sul T. Holt, Page 5 

or a part of the excess, and that if he does have it 16 

eubjeot to the additional asseaement whloh the awewor Is 

required to make. The above Article 7198 negatives the 

idea that the recdltloa of the tract In question, glrlug 

the quantity as 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 queatlon as to whether the 

assessmnt of the balanoe of the survey eaoh year to the 

%ukuown owner" wes valid, or whether the undivided 54.39 

acrea in question atands in the poaitlon of never hating 

been essesred. 

We olted ease8 above holding that when the taxpayer furnishes the description In the mmdltlon and aasea8- 

llienthat 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 queetlon had been ameased by the State against au Wakuown 

owner," and the oourt held the assersnumt InvalId beoauw 

the list end aaoesament raiLed to identify the land in questioc, and the oourt said: 

"'. . . 7ha lot6 of land mast be deflnltely and dlatlnotly deoeribed, and par01 proof cannot supply tba detiofenoy In tha descriptlolt or 

bouudariee. These muat be aaoertalned froa, what 

la written. 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 

ldentliled except es being an umlirlded part of aald S99.39 

acre tract; but we 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 property has been 

omitted frm the tax rolls for any year or 

years since lEFX, or shall find that acg previous 

asaesamente on any reel property for the years 

mentioned are invalid, or have been declared 

Invalid for any reason by any district oourt 

In a suit to enforce the aolleatlon or taxes 

on said properties, they may, at any meeting or 

the Court, order a list or such propertier to 

be made In triplioate and fix a compansatlon 

therefor; the said list to show a o+mplete 

description or such properties and for what 

years auoh properties were omitted tram the tax 

rolls, or for what years the aseesmieota are 

round to be invalid and 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 oolleotIon or taxes. Ro 

reasseaannt of any property ehall be held 

against any Innooent purahaaar of the aam if 

the tax records of any ooumty fall to ahow any 

assessment (for any year 80 re-assessed) by which 

said, property oan be ldentlrled and 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: 

*When said 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 861 to the value8, 8hall 

cause the taxes to be computed and extended at 

the tax rate in eflett for each separate year mentioned In said list; and, In addition thereto, 

shall cause to be added a penalty equal la amount 

to what would be six per oent interest to the date 

or ffieiklng rald~ llat rrom the d&te such groperties 

would have been delinquent had 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 roregoing discussion, we believe 

that it Ie urmeoeeeary to answer the other questiona in 

your Inquiry. 

Our anetwr can be sufmasrlzed as follows I 0&p 

345 acres of’ the land in question was rendered by the owner. 

Under Artiole 91Qi3 the Aaeersor-aollector has authority to 

assetxzi in the rmrie of an *uakaowa ownera any exoees In a 

survey; and upon dleocvsry that this particular landowner 

owned part ot this excess such excess owned by her oan be 

assessed against her under the prooedure presorlbetl In Art101os 9346 and 9349. Suoh aasessaent ehimld be or an ondivi6eQ 54.39 acre6 In said 399.39 aore tract. 

Youra very truly 

FIRS? ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

CCR:%w