that the con- tract relatedin part to the "discovery,asssessment,and valuationof unren- dered oil properties"and&hat such portionof the contractaot only was itself valid, , but also gave supportto the generalvalidityof the mntraot. This deoisionwas renderedin 1926 prior to the passage of Acts 1930, 4lst Legisla- ture, 4th C.S., p. 9, oh. 8 (Article7335a,V.A.C.S.)which providesin partr . "No oontraotshall be made or enteredinto by the Ccmmrissioners' Court in oormeotionwith the oolleotionof delinquenttaxeswhre the compel- sationunder such contraofis more than fifteenueruentof the amzat oolleotede Said ooatraotmust be approvedby bo%h the Cauptrollerand the AttorneyGsleralof the State of Texas, bothas to substanceand form a . *" (Usphasisadded)
Cur courtshave since repeatedlyheld that oontraotsrelatingto the colleotion of delinquenttaxes are void unless approvedas requiredby the aboveArticle. Eastemood V. HendersonCounty,54 S.W. (Zd) 897 (CommaApp.);BMte V. McGill, 131 Tex. 231, 114 S W. (2d) 860: XarquartV. Harris County,117 S.VL,(2d) 494 (dismissed,judgmentcorrect). Consequently, while we are bound bythe holding of Roper V. Hall, supra,to the effect that contraotsof this kind relate in part to the collectionof delinquenttaxes, m ars forcedby Article 7336a,V. A.C.S., and the abow cited oases to costalude'that such oorptraots are now void unless approvedby the Comptrollerand the AttornuyGeneralo Moreover,the holdingin Roper V. Hall that such contractsdo relatesin part to the colleo- tloa of delinquenttaxes has since found supportin the oollowingstatementby our Ccwnissionof Appeals:
"Uhea the purposefor whioh Article7335a was passed is oonsidered, ~1)do not think the Legislatureused the words 'delinquenttares' in a technical8ense.s Rhite v. &Gill, supra.
Since the oomtraotin questionnerer receivedthe approvalof the Comptroller and the Attorney Gaaeral,the portionsof the.oontraotrelatingto the aolleo- tion of delinquenttaxes neoessarilyare void; however,it is settledthat in contractsof this kind the portionsof the oontraotare so interrelatedthat the invalidityof a part opusesthe entire contractto falle MarquartV. Harris County,suprajAldriahV. Dallas County,167 S.Ti.'2d) 560 (dismissed). Consequently, we are constrainedto hold that the entire contractin question is invalidby reason of the principlesand authoritiesalove stated*
This conclusionmakes unnecessarya considerationof the seriousques- tions of whethera oontraotof this kiad involvesan attemptby the oceanission- em 1 court to oiroumventthe prohibitioiagainstaoting initiallyon assesmaenta other than those submittedby the tax assessor(hkxrquart V* Rarris County, supm, at p. 503; Aldriohv. Dallas County supra,at p. 565) and whether the oontraotinvolvesan attempt to aocomplishthe prohibitedpurposeof vesting in othersthe dutieswhich the law confersupon the tax assessor(Terre11v. Greene,88 Tex. 539, 31 Sew. 651, 634: 34 Tax. Jur. p. 444)~ and loco cl& supra.
In your letterof June 8, 1943, you state: Hon. Arnold Smith - Page 5 (o-5302)
". . . the Conmissioners'Court of BBontgQnery County did not make any provisionsfor levyingand colleotinga suffioieattan to pay any interestand to prwide at least 2% as a sinkingfund,etc., at the time of the exeoutioaof the oontraot."
This statementwas made with referenoeto that portionof Seotion7 of Artiole XI of our Constitution,providing:
"But no debt for an7 purposeshall ever be incurredin any manner by any city or countyunless provisionis made at the time of ore- sting the same, for levyingand collectinga sufficienttax to pay the interestthereonand provideat least ta per cent as a sink- ing funds . . ."
In Stevensonv*'Blake,113