TEE ATroRNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

~~Hon. :;'ayne Lefevre 

County Auditor 

clay County 

Henrietta, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

Opinion No. O-1960 

Re: Fees of inspector of hides and animals in 

cou~nties subject to the laws regulating the 

inspection of hides and animals, Articles 

6972 through 7008, Vernon's Annotated Civil 

Statutes, as emended. 

Amount for which property under a tax 

judgment may be sold anti determination of 

the value of the property, 

Sections 7, 8 and 9. 

Article 73b.5b, 

kuthority of County Commissioners' Court 

to deduct interest and penalties accrued 

on delinquent taxes mistakenly covered in 

certificate of tax-assessor-collector. 

We are in receipt of your request fbr ai. opinion upon the following three questions: 

"1. If and when a County is under the lays 

governing the inspection of hides and animals,. 

are the fees which are allowed~the inspector 

under Art. 7OOS Vernons Texas Statutes 1936 tom 

be paid from the General fund of the County or 

to be paid by the person or persons owning the 

animals or hides where are inspected? 

"2. Kay property which is being sold for 

property tax (State County School, etc.,) be 

sold for an amount less than the amount of the 

dclincuent taxes, penalties, interest, and costs 

accrued against the pro?arty? Or msy it be sold 

for what is considered as being the actual 
Hon. Y!ayne Lefevre, Page 2 

value of the property at the tize of the sale? 

(Zhat .governi::g body, if any, would have authority to set the actual value of such property 

at the time of sale?) 

“3. If a property omer applies to then 

Tax-Assessor-Collector of a County for information concerning the payment of taxes on a 

specific piece of property, and the Tax-AssessorCollector issues a certified statement that 

there are no delinquent taxes against that 

property; then some five years later a delinquent taxing agency finds that there are delinquent taxes against this property for one 

or more years, which were covered by the certificate issued by the Tax-Assessor-Collector, 

would the County Commissioners Court have the 

authority to deduct the interest and penalties 

accrued on the delinquent taxes? (;;hich had 

accrued during the period of time)lI 

Artidle 7OOg, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, 

relating to fees of an inspector of hides and animals, 

provides in Section 1, as follows: 

"Each inspector of hides and animals, or 

deputy inspector, provided for in this chapter 

shall be entitled to receive ten cents for 

each hide or animal personally inspected by 

him, but if more than fifty hides or animals 

are inspected in the same lot, then ten cents 

each for the first fifty, and three cents 

each for all above that number, provided that 

the commissioners court of any county not exempted from the provisions of this chapter 

may, upon hearing showing the necessity therefor after due notice of the time and place of 

such hearing having been published once each 

week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in such county, 

by order entered upon the minutes of such commissioners court, authorize said inspector, 

or deputy inspectors, of said county to charge 

not to exceed twenty-five cents for each hide 

or animal inspected csce;Z in cases where 
Hon. Wayne Lefevre, Page 3 

more than fifty hides or animals are inspected in the same lot, in :ihich event no more than 

twenty-five cents each fcr the first fifty 

hides or animals inspected and not to exceed 

ten cents- each for allhities or animals above 

that number shall be authorizcd.lt 

Article 6985, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, 

governs the certificates of inspection issued by the 

'Inspector. It reads: 

Wnenever an inspector shall have inspected any ,animal or animals, as herein provided, 

he shall, on the presentation of a written bill 

of sale or power of attorney from the owner or 

owners of such animal,or animals, or his or their 

agent duly authorized in writing, duly sinned 

and acknowledged, -- and on nayment.to said Fnsnect- 

'or of his legal mL 

-- 

-- deliver to the nu~rchaser 

z the ani!zjais mentioned in suzi bxl of sale 

or no:rer of attorney, or his agent, a certificate 

setting forth that he has carefully examined 

and inspected such animal or animals, and that 

said purchaser has in all respects complied 

with the law, which certificate shall not be 

complete until the same and the bill of sale 

herein provided for shall he recorded in the 

office of the county clerk of the county, and 

&dc;;;.fied to by said clerk,under his hand 

Such certificate snail be then delivered to the purchaser and shall protect him 

from the payment of inspection fees in any 

other district .for the animals therein described, except from the county from which the,same 

may be exported; provided that any person 

driving cattle in his own mark and brand shall 

be entitled to the certificate of inspection 

provided for herein, on payment of fees to the 

inspector, and on presentation to the inspector 

of the certificate of the county clerk of the 

county where such‘mark and brand is recorded, 

to the effect that the mark and brand named 

therein is duly recorded in his office ES the 

mark and brand of the person so driving such 

cattleOTf (Underscoring ours), 
Hon. YJayne Lefevre, Page 4 

It will be noted that said article provides 

that tlon payment to said inspector of his legal fees", 

he shall present a certificate of inspection kere the 

owner or owners of the animals inspected are otherwise 

entitled.to it. 

This article is authority for the proposition 

that inspection fees are payable to the inspector by 

the owner or ovmers of the animals or hides inspected. 

See also Article 6972, 6973, 6977, 6963, 69BG, 69%~, 

6992, 6993, 6994, 7001, 7OC3, Vernon's Annotated Civil 

Statutes. 

In answer to your first question, it is our 

opinion that in those counties subject to the law regulating the inspectionof hides and animals, as prcvided 

in Articles 6972 throllgh 7005, as amended, the foes of 

an inspector are payable directly to the inspectcr by 

the ower or owners of the animals or hides which are 

inspected. 

Your second question is ans:-wed in Opinion j!o. 

O-1501 of this Department, written by Hon. Billy Coldberg to Hon. C. '+i. Talbot, County Attorney, Eastrop, 

Texas, copy of vihich is enclosed. 

Discussing Sections 7,.6 and 9 of Article 7345b, 

Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, the opinion holds: 

w * X because of Section 8 of Article 

7345b of Vernon's Civil Statutes, a sheriff 

may not sell property to ~anyone except one of 

_ the taxing'units in the suit, unless said sale 

is for an amount equal to the adjudged value 

of the property or the aggregate ainount of the 

judgment against the property in the suit, 

whichever is lovrer.ll 

As is pointed out in said opinion, the term 

"adjudged value" is defined in Section 5 of Article 731+5b, 

sunra. Under this section the court finds "reasonable 

fair val;eff or "adjudged val.ue". 

the court, 

Beyond this ~o~cr of 

we are not aware of the authority or any ocher 

'judicial or administrz.tivo official or agency to deterkine 

the value of the property involved in the f'oreclosure 
HOll. Zayne Lefevre, Page 5 

proceeding. 

In connection with your third questions, we 

call attention to Article 7256a, Vernon's Annotated 

Civil Statutes, which reads as follows: 

"Sec. 1. On and after October lst, 14'29, 

the Tax Collector or his deputy of any county in this State containing 210,000 population 

or core according to the last preceding federal census, or any city or political sub-division 

or tax assessing district within any such 

county shall, upon request, issue a certificate 

shotring the amount of taxes, interest, penalty 

and costs due, if any, on the property described in said certificate. Xhen any certificate 

so issued shows all taxes, interest, penalty 

and costs on t!le property therein described to 

be paid in full to and including the year therein stated, the said certificate shall be conclusive evidence of the full payment of all 

taxes, interest, penalty and costs due on the 

property described in said certificate for all 

years to and including the year stated therein. 

Said certificate showing all taxes paid shall 

be admissible in evidence on the trial of any 

case involving taxes for any year or years 

covered by such certificate, and the introduction of the same shall be conclusive proof of 

the payment in full of all taxes, interest, 

penalty and costs covered by the same. 

Vet. 2. If any such certificate is issued 

or secured through fraud or collusion, the same 

shall be void and of no force and effect, and 

any such Tax Collector or his deputy shall be 

liable upon his official bond for any loss resulting to any such County or city or political 

subdivision or tax assessing district of the 

State of Texas, through the fraudulent or collusive or negligent issuance of any such certificate." 

The Supreme Court of Texas, in the Case Of CITY 

03 S;,ij hr,'c;&O V, il3L'fS;CFi, (1936), 91 S. il. (2d) 308, the 
closest authority in poirlt 

find, hr,r the follol:ing to 

72jSa, supra: 

?;hich we have 

sa-y ,in regard 

b?cll able to 

to .;rticle 

.'!In this state there is non statute applicable.to plaintiff in error which undertakes to 

'make entries in the tax records or tax receipts 

or certificates effective to estop the city 

from collecting its unpaid taxes. It is unnecessary to express opinion as to the construction or validity of chapter 77, Acts Second 

Called Session, Forty-first Legislature, (1929) 

p. 153 (Artic~le '7%jSa, Vernon's Ann. Civ. St.) 

which provides that certificates showing 

payment of all taxes shall be conclusive 

evidence of such payment, as that statute aoplies only to counties containing a population 

of 210,000 and to cities and political subdivisions and districts in such counties.1' 

The questicn the Supreme Court had before it 

and upon which it reversed the Court of Civil Appeals 

at Austin (73 S. :'I. (26) 125) is as follows: 

I(* * * 'Whether the city is estopped to 

assert a lien for unpaid taxes, to the injury 

of an innocent mortgagee who lends money on 

.such property as security, on the faith of, 

and in reliance upon, its assessment rolls 

showing that such taxes have been paid."' 

In an exhaustive opinion the Supreme Court rejects the theory of estoppel in ,pais, as set forth in 

'the-case of STATE v0 DAVIDSON, 280 S. W. 29Z;and'holds 

as follows: 

fiSince the action of the tax collector 

in causing the tax records to show that the 

taxes were paid when in fact they were not paid 

was unauthorized, and since the tax coliector 

in collecting taxes and in keeping the records 

essential to their collection T%as c:zercisi:is 

for the city poi:ers essentially public and 

goverznental, it follows that the city is not 

estopped by the acts of the tax collector from 

. . . 
Hon. 

case 

YJayne Lefevre, Page 7 

asserting its lien for the taxes, unless exccption is made to the well-settled rule that 

cities are not liable for the unauthorized or 

negligent acts of thair officials in the performance of the city's governmental functions." 

>Je believe the City of San Angelo v. Doutsch 

is authority to the effect that there is no estoppe.~ against the collection of the delinquent taxes .mistakenly covered by the tax certificate in the present 

situation. It is not necessary.to point out that Art, 

Z5Sa, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, has no application in this situation, since it applies only to 

counties containing the po:pulation of 210,000.and to 

cities and political subdivisions and districts in such 

counties, Ue are not passing upon the construction 

or validity .of this statute. 

The County Cocnissioners' Court is a. court of 

limited powers, and it has no authority which has not 

been conferred by the Constitution or by statutes0 These 

is no constitutional or statutory authority conferred 

upon the, County Com?issioners' Court by w'nich it may 

release accrued interest and penalties for delinquent 

taxes. In a situation %here the delinquent taxes are 

still due, the County Comnissioners' Court has no Po?rer 

to deduct interest and penalties which have accruea. 

In answer to your third question, it is our 

opinion that where a tax-assessor-collector of a county 

erroneously issues a certified statement that there are 

no delinquent taxes against certain property, the County 

Commissioners' Court upon the discovery of the error 

does not have the authority to deduct the interest and 

penalties accrued on the delinquent taxes which were 

mistakenly covered in the certificate and which are still 

due. 

Trusting that we have fully answered the questions submitted to us, we are 

Yours very truly 

DS:ob 

BY 

API'ROV6D Z'ZB 27, 1940 

/s/ Dick stout 

Dj.ck sto11t 

rissiszant