Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1945 )

459 i
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTl%l
GR````SELLERS
A,.y````~
GLNLRAL
gonorableA. 0. Mueller
county Attorney
Llano county
~a, Texas
Dear Sir: Opinion no. O-6708
rrom this Department is as follovs
%le county Coamllss
County has requested me
and AR!PICL?7218 of the
to-Board af 41x11
it as a board
in Pay of each
cable WORE
the assessment
ir counties
7218-m & pert: ?PheAssessor
ubmlt a.llthe llfstrof propert ren-
to the first Monday Jn June to
izatlon of his county on the first
or as soon.thereafter as practicable,
ectloa, approval, correction or equall-
the above two statutes-
',U&dder Is It Imperative
that the Board of equalisagion meet 'On the second
Monday in I&y of each Tear, or a8 soon thereafter as
practicable BEFORE the first day of June’ or can the
Board of.4ualizatlon meet on the.'First Monday in
June or aa soon thereafter as practicable?'
.:orsrable
A. G. !Sueller, pw 2
nIt'would seem that the firat Artlole above
quoted requires the i3oard oi tqualization to met
Em?i% the firat day of June, and then ooatinue by
additional meetings, after adjournments, until the
assessment lists have been inspeoted, SpprOVed,
oorreoted or equalized. I would like an opiuion
in regard to the abov6."
There is no confliot between Article 7206, V. A. C. S. i;
end titiole 7218, V. A. c. 5. Artiole 7206 pertains to the duties
0: the Comaissioners*Court while aittiug~as the Board of Xquali- i4
zation. Xrticle 7218 pertains to the duties of the assessor or .
t3lZSs.
Since there is no oorfliot batween the two above men-
timed Articles,'we must now analyze Artiole 7206, supra, to
~itermine the answer t0.you.rinquiry. 'rie ma that WC Tex. Jur.
133, provides in pert as follower
RThe first paragraph of the.article provides
that the board shall sit *on the aeoord Zoadag in
Xay of each year, or as aoon thareaftar as prao-
tioable before the first day of June;! nevertheless,
a oontinuation'ofproceedings after Juse 1 does not
render an inoreaee of value nsde .afterthat date a
nullity."
in Crahm vs. Lasater, (oiv. xpp.) 26 2. 3. 472, the
court in a di5OUfdGn of Article 1517a, 1 Sayles'Civ. St. (now
titicle 7206, v. A. c. s.; with the exoegtion of one or two minor
differences, auoh as the changes in dates)said;
vi3ythe first subdivisionof artiolo 1517.6,'~
1 Sayles' Civ. St., it is provided: 'The county
coa5issioners*courts of the severai oounties of
this state ahall oonvene and sit as a board of
equalization on the seoond E!ondagin June of eaoh
3-a-, or a8 soon thereafter as praotioable before
the 1st day of July, to reoeive all the assessment
lists or books of the assessors of ttieircounties
for thair irapeotion, corraotion, equalization,acd
approval.* It will thus be seen that the gurpoae
of the seating which is thus required to.be held in
June is to receive thy lista and books frondthe
asseaaor, and that~it is n6t ex_=ressly stipulated
that the iyorkof the board in nakin~ tha inspeotion
aildcorrection rsquimd of it ahail be OOapb3t3d
a3cornbleA. 0. liiueller, w6e 3
within the time nti5ea in this aaotion. In the case
of Swenson v. EoLaren, 2 '28x.Civ. App. 334, 23.S. X.
309, we quoted with approval somwhat at length frox
seotion 448 in Sutherland on Statutory Construction,
where it iaheld that ordinarily ststutas of this
kihd are, as to the tiineapeoified within i-ihich an
aot j,.e to be done, only direotory, and do not prevent
Its perforxanor after the expiration thereof. Xe find
nothing in this motion of the statuta which leads ua
to conolude +hat the legislature intended that the
oo~maissloners~ oourt should n6t only meet in June for
the purpoee of receiving the lists froa the assessor,
but should be reatrioted to that month in &ving the
notioes required to the taxpayer, and in the perfomatioe
of the duties required of them in hearirg the different
parties. iie can easily see how, under soxe oiruumstanoes,
such time would be wholly Inadequate for the purpose I.xI-
ten&id to be aooompliahed. 3e therefore oo.uoludethat
the action of the board of equalization sitting after
the lat day of July, whloh in this oaae seas to have
been a continuation of the June meting, is not for
that reason a nuJ.lity.W
IE view of the foregoing it is our opinion that the pro-
of Article 7296, supra, as to the tim apeoifica
visio.-,s withb
..:.ioi
the Coaoiaeionera~Court shall convene aridsit as a board
ai"squelization am direotory, but if the Comisaionera* Court
Lees hot met as an equalization board within the desiaeted
it should convene as .soonthereaftar as practicable.
ti::.e,
:;'a
call your attelitionto the fact that the Comniosioners~
Zo:irtshould avoid a= 'ucI?ecessarydelse In tha performmoe of
this tiportant duty in order that ~thabusiness affairs of the
coiL'rty
and state nay be adxinistsred in an orderly oalinex,and:
t%e zi&ts of all parties oonoerned .my be protected.
Pours very truly,