Case Information
*1 Hon. K. H. Dally Opinion No. O-5909
County Attorney, Re: Validity of the valuation Hutchinson County contract between Hutchinson Borger , Texas County and the firm of
Pritchard & ,Abbot t .
Dear Sir:
We have your communication of recent date wlth- drawing the original contract submitted to us and the new contract in lieu of the original contract is considered herein regarding the validity of the same. It is our un- derstanding that the original contract presented to us and that will not be executed by the parties in question the contract set forth herein will be executed y said tl parties if such is valid, in our opinion and the Commis- sioners’ Court has the legal power and authority to make a contract such as the one here involved.
The contract in question provides: “STATE OF TEXAS KNOW ,ALL MEN BY COUNTY OF RUTCHINSON: THESE PRESENTS: That, WHEREAS, the Commissioners’ Court of Hutchinson County, Texas, has determined that it would be wise and to the best interest of said County for It to employ experts skilled in the matter of appraising and valuing oil and gas properties and public utility properties in said County said experts to compile and furnish h data and in ormation to said Court sitting as a
Board of Equalization for the purpose of equal- izing valuations of such properties as compared with other property valuations in said County for tax purposes for the year 1944 and said dat: and information to be made available in respect to all of such properties properly,and lawfully coming before it for consideration in the equal- ization of values upon renditions made by the owners ‘thereof, or upon renditions made by the tax assessor where the owner or owners may fail to render the same; and,
. _. "WHEREAS, said Court finds that Pritch- ard and Abbott, a partnership of Fort Worth, Texas, are skilled in such matters and have scientific and technical knowledge in respect to the appraising and valuing of such proper- ties and many years experience in the matter of appraising and valuing such properties; and,
ltWI&RRAS, Pritchard and Abbott, have pro- ;osed to said Commissioners' Court of HUTCHIN- SON County that they will gather and compile information relating to the value of oil and gas and public utility properties as of January 1, 1944, and make said information completely available to said Court, to be used by it as it may see fit in determining what values should be assigned to said properties properly coming before it for consideration; and will charge for their services a sum equal to FOUR (4$) Cents on each One Hundred Dollars valuation as finally ascertained and determined for RUTCHIN- SOIi County of oil and public utility properties, or other mineral interests.
"IT IS THEREFORE AGREED by and between Hutchinson County, Texas, acting herein by and through its Commissioners' Court Party of the il First Part, and Pritchard and Ab ott, of Tarrant County, Texas, Parties of the Second Part as follows:
"Parties of the Second Part agree to compile a complete list of the record owners of all oil and gas producing properties wherever situated and located in Hutchinson County, Texas, and all undeveloped leases and royalty interests adja- cent thereto, as of Januaxy 1, 1944 said compila- tion and record to show the particu ar i interest or interests therein owned; and also a complete list of all public utility properties located in said County as of January 1, 1944.
"Parties of the Second Part also agree to secure and make available for the use of Party of the First Part information showing the values of said properties to be considered by Party of the First Part as it may deem fit in determining the proper values for tax assessment purposes for 1944, to be assigned to such of said properties as *3 may come before the Party of the First Part sit- ting as a Board of Equal$z,ation for consideration upon renditions made by the owners thereof, or upon renditions made by the Tax Assessor where the owner, or owners, fail or refuse to render the same.
“FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the skilled services, technical knowledge and experience of Parties of the Second Part in the performance of the obligations devolving upon them hereunder, and in consideration of the 2nformation given and as- sistance furnished by them to Party of the First Part in undertaking to value and equalize the val- ue of the said properties properly coming before it for consideration at Its equalization hearings in the year 1944, Party of the First Part agrees and obligates itself to compensate Parties of the second part as follows:
“FOR THE SERVICES HEREIN AGREED to be per- formed Second Party shall receive the said sum equal to FOW Cents on each One Hundred Dollars valuation on all oil properties, mineral interests, and public utility properties, ascertained and determined by the Commissioners1 Court for tax purposes for Hutch- inson County for the year 1944, to be paid out of the General Fund of Hutchinson County.
“IT IS FURTBER ,AGREED .&JD UNDERSTOOD by both Parties that Hutchinson County, Texas, will issue, or cause to be issued to Pritchard and .Abbott war- rants drawn against the General Fund of said Hutch- inson County Texas, and payable out of the current revenues of 1944.
“PARTY OF THE FIRST PART hereby specially con- tracts and obligates itself ‘to, at any time same may become necessary, pass and enter of record such or- ders as may be proper and necessary to legalize and facilitate the payment of all sums due Party of the Second Part.
I’SuD PRITCHARD AND ABBOTT, further agree that in no way will the said Hutchinson County be obli- gated to said Prichard and Abbott, or their assist- ants, for salaries, expense, or material, except as ab,ove stated.
. . "WITNESS our hands in duplicate this the -day of , A. D., 194,.
"COUNTY OF WTCHINSON Party of the First Part BY County Judge Commissioner, Commissioner, Precinct #2 Precinct #l
Commissioner Precinct #4 Commissioner
Precinct #3
"ATTEST:
PRITCRARD & ABBOTT County Clerk. Parties of the Second Part g.0&inson C&nty, n
BY The question involved in this opinion is the validity of the foregoing contract.
The authority of the Commissioners' Court of Hutchinson County as t;ie governing body thereof to make contracts in its behalf is strictly limited to that con- ferred either expressly or by fair and necessary iTgl;ca- tion by the constitution and laws of this State.
Tex. Jur., Vol. 11, pp. 630-634; lj C.J., pp. 540, $1 Section 233; Foster V. City of Waco, 255 S.W~. 1104. Vo; Hall, $80 S.W. Rosenberg v. Lovett, 173 S.W. 580. Roper v. 298 and authorities cited therein J
We have failed to find any statute expressly au- thorizing the Commissioners 1 Court of Hutchinson County to make a contract such as the one under consideration. If the Commissioners' Court of Hutchinson County has the power to make the contract under consideration, such power must come within the implied power possessed by the Commis- sioners' Court of said County.
The authority of a county commissioners court to make a contract of the character of the one inquired about *5 in your letter seems to have been settled by the court in the case of Roper v. Ball, supra; in this case the Waco Court of Civil Appeals held, in effect, that the county com- missioners' court had the implied authority to employ valua- tion experts to aid and assist the commissioners' court in discharging its duties when sitting as a Board of Equaliza- tion in the matter of,the fixing of valuations on oil and gas properties for taxatfon purposes.
The opinion In the foregoing case has also been followe,d by the El Paso Court of Civil Appeals in the case of Federal Royalty Company V. State, 42 S.W. (2d) 670.
In the cases of Von Rosenberg v. Lovett, Roper v. Hall, and Federal Royalty Company v. State, cited above, It -was held that the authority of the commissioners* court to enter into such contract wasderived by necessary impllca- tion from the language of the then existing statutes. There is dictum in the case of Marquart v. Harris County, 117 S.W. (2d) 494, to the effectthat the commissioners' court has the authority to make provisions for the valuation of prop- erty which the tax assessor is incapable of valuing, and that such action does not operate,,to vest In others the duties which are by law vested in such assessor.
As a matter of law it is difficult to determine whether the contract here involved is one regarding del1nquen.t taxes. However, it is apparent that It is not the intention .or the effect of the contract that Pritchard and Abbott should
perform the duties imposed by law on any of the county offi- cers concerned. On the contrary, it does appear that its pur- pose is to merely aid such officers in the effective perform- ance of their respective duties. That is, to aid the commis- sioners' court when sitting as a Board of Equalization.
We have carefully considered the cases of White v. McGill, 114 S.W. (2d) 860; Easterwood v. Henderson County 62 S.W.(2d) 85; Aldrich v. Dallas County 167 S.W.(2d) 560. iylvna Sanders Company v. Scurry, 77 S.W.(2dj 709 and the authirities cited in said cases in connection with the matters under con- sideration. Apparently the contracts involved in these opin- ions were in connection with the collection of delinquent taxes. We do not think that the contracts involved in these cases were the sane kind or type of contracts as the contract under consideration.
Assuming for the purpose of this opinion that the tax assessor-collector and the commissioners' court are not legally
, .^ , -- qualified to render the services contracted for and that the firm of Pritchard & Abbott performs no duties imposed by law upon any of the officers concerned, then, the commissioners’ court is authorized to make a contract for the valuation of oil and gas properties which the tax assessor-collector and commissioners’ court is incapable of valuing, and that such action does not operate to vest in others the duties which are by law vested in such county officials. St at ed anot her way it is our opinion that the commissioners’ court may va- lidly employ skilled experts to value for taxation purposes property in special instances where technical equipment training and skill is required, providing proper provis 1 on has been made in the county’s budget to pay for such services.
In view of the foregoing authorities, it is our opin- ion that the contract quoted above is valid and that the Com- missioners8 Court has the legal authority to make and execute such cant ract .
The necessity of making and execution of the con- tract must be determined by the Commissioners’ Court. This department has no authority to pass upon the question as to the necessity of the contract, this matter is wholly within the discretion of said court.
It should be borne in mind that the claims of Pritch- ard and Abbott must be registered in compliance with Article 1625, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes, and that the firm of Pritchard and Abbott have no priority of claim by reason of said contract. (See the cases of Wilkinson v. Franklin County, 94 S.W.(2d) 1190, and Clark and Courts v. Crawford, et al. 161 S.W.(2d) 148.
Yours very truly .APPROVED MAR 18, 1944
/s/ Grover Sellers ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
By /s/ C. F. Gibson APPHOVED: OPINION COMMITTEE C. F. Gibson, Assistant BY GCB, Chairman
/s/ Ardell Williams ,Ardell Williams, Assistant ,AW:ncd:wb