Case Information
i OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTl%l
GR~~~~SELLERS
A,.y~~~~~ GLNLRAL
gonorable A. 0. Mueller
county Attorney Llano county
~a, Texas Opinion no. O-6708
Dear Sir:
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 & pert: ?Phe Assessor 7218-m ubmlt a.ll the llfstr of 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- ',U&dder the above two statutes- 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
nIt'would seem that the firat Artlole above quoted requires 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." i;
There is no confliot between Article 7206, V. A. C. S. end titiole 7218, V. A. c. 5. Artiole 7206 pertains to the duties 0: the Comaissioners* Court while aittiug~ as the Board of Xquali- i 4 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.r inquiry. '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'of proceedings after Juse 1 does not render an inoreaee of value nsde .after that 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;
vi3y the first subdivision of 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!ondag in 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 ttieir counties 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 frond the
asseaaor, and that~ it is n6t ex_=ressly stipulated that the iyork of the board in nakin~ tha inspeotion aild correction rsquimd of it ahail be OOapb3t3d
a3cornble A. 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 tiine apeoified 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.uolude that the action of 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 withb visio.-,s ..:.ioi the Coaoiaeionera~ Court shall convene arid sit as a board ai" squelization am direotory, but if the Comisaionera* Court Lees hot met as an equalization board within the desiaeted ti::.e, it should convene as .soon thereaftar as practicable.
:;'a call your attelition to the fact that the Comniosioners~ Zo:irt should avoid a= 'ucI?ecessary delse In tha performmoe of this tiportant duty in order that ~tha business 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,