the guise of using the same for its own informationand guidancewhoa sitting as a Board of Equalizgtion, does not seeanto this oourt to squarewith the talamcedsystem of relativepourers and duties oonferredupon that body by our laws, as -parable to the correlativeone8 oonferredupon the OOU~ tax assessor-oollsotor; . . .
"The authorities oited under ground (5) supra seem to make it quite clear t&t this oontraotdid evidencean undertakingto in effectusurp the Offi- cial privilegesand obligationsof the tax assessor-oolleotor, as vouohsafed inthe statutesthere collated,while uponthe other hand, the differingand oorrelativaduties of the oonwLssioaers* OOUI% -- *s a Board of Equalieatiom-- are mbraoed within R.S., Articles7206, 7211 and 7212. Bdertbem it would seen never to have been oontsmplatedthat the Board of Equaliza~:iom should a& upon whimg otherthan the assessmentsfirst renderedto them %the tax assessor-collaotor, amd not initiallyupon their ORB motion. . . l" c -c -
HonorableTom Seay, page 3 (O-3005)
The fact that the instantcontractis oonfinedto the territory embracedin the &arillo IndependentSchool Distriotand that farm lands are excludedfrom its operationmakes no differencein principle.
Inths case of Roper v. Hall, 290 S&f. 289, the Waoo Court of CivilAppeals sustaineda oontraot made by FreestoneCountyiaith Thomas Y. Pickottfor the oolleotionand assemblyof informationoonoerningoil r~r~p-ar- ties and the fMng of values thereo% However,it was pointedout 8s the basis for that holdingthat those servioesinvolvedan exbraordinaryskill not possessedby the ordinarytax assessor. The pewor of the county oonnnission- ers* Courts to make oontraots of the charaoterinvolvedin Ro r v. Rail was reoognisedin the ldarquart case. But, in our opinionthe serv -redoe8 req in paragraph2 of the oontiraot in questionare not of the type dealt with in the Ro r aa8e. At least as muoh skill and speoialknowledgeis requiredin attaoh- ng valuationsto farm lands as in valuing a large part of bity properties. To P- hold that the servioesprovidedfor in said paragraph2 are expert services which can be oontraotedfor by a conmissioners* courtwould be to wipe auf the distinotionrecognizedin Roper v. Hall, and expresslydrawn and followedin Marquartv. Harris County.
The provisionsof the quoted paragraphof the oontraotforms P major part of the oomsiderationof the agreement,aad so iaaeparablybound to other provisionsthereof,that the entire contra& mu& fall regardlessof the validityof any suoh other parts. MarquartV. &rris County,supra. Hence, we rest our opinionat this point and answer your puestionfn the negative.
Yoursver~rtruly
ATTORNEYGEXBAL OF 'TEXAS
APPROVED JAN 23, 1941 By /s/Glenn I?.L&i8 /t747mv;;uvper8 Glann R. Lewis AlTORNEYffENERAL Assistmzt
APPROVBD opinionConmlihtee By xw B Chairman