We have reoelved yOlU' l&tar l'OqUO8ting an Opinion MCI Quote frolp Jour I'O~~llt. iMlpD this ~ptU’t8Ulat.

“A receat IIUPVO~ di8olorad that a taxpeyer had been Dering t8Xl38 Qa prOp@l'ty, 0 pOrtian Of vhleh not vlthla the lilllit8 or mm4 diitrict #J, for P per104 Of 20 plbl’llq pall8 COUQty, -8, the county for nlm- Dem8ad he8 been made upon bur8ealeat to the oxteat of uly awl m OX0088 ptqments. “18 it legtAlly p088iblO for the CaUnty t0 re-

imbur8e 8UOh texpoyer? xi 801 OaO 8U& pIYtII6atS bemade Oilt Of th0 intXtIWcltUld8iliklUR f"UIIdOf district #9? '(All t8X Paylnent8 VOW VOlUlltWilY mSd0) nAuthoritle8, (Au&la Rat'1 Rank of Auetin V8. Sheppard et 01, 71 8. W. (24) 242.)

Honorable Ch4Ples E. Reagan, page 2

Chspter 3 Of Title 22 Of vWIlOll’8 CfVil 8t8tUtC8 Of Texas 1s the statutory lav relating to the prooedure pertain- ing t0 the lS8uSnCe Of road dlatrlat bon48 md the malump of payment of suoh bonds.

The fundamental rules of law applicable to your first qUe8tiOn h6Ve been di8CU88ed by thi8 I)epal%nWmt in our opiaion HO. 0-1266. A oopy of raid opinion ^[18] enolored for your l.nfoxmatlon. Also 8ee our opinion fo. o-2836, a oopy of 18 8180 OIlClOfKZd. Vhbh

In aaoordance vlth the authorltls8 olted ln es14 opfn-

iOIl8, your first questian is accordingly Pn8WeZ'l34 in the af- firmative. we tlOXt COMidOl' VW 8WJOIid QUC8tiCL

The lien oq the property in the road dlrtriat areated

in favor of the bond holders oould not be said to extend beyond the bOUUd8r~e8 of the road diatrlot. ,The tax va8 levied, an- 8e88ed and oolleoted by the t8$&g u&t, probably und+E 8 X%8- take of faot, aertairily vithout authority of lav. m t8x v&8 pal4 by the property ovner to the taxlag authority undiir a alst6ke of Sact. From the faOt8 8UtE%tted thea3 i8 nothing to 8h0v thfbt the taxpayer v88 aegllgeat la falling to aloertaln vhether all of hi8 property ~88 vithin the rbad di8triat bouad- we do not believe, in this oonnectlon, that the lav Or108. vould rwmlre a pemoq to go to the traubl@ and experue of hay- ing his property eurveyed to determine lf it 18 properXy tit&In the bOWad8rl,es of the taxing unit in order to px-ealude‘the rfak be reoovered when of paying taxes vh.loh could not rrubrrequently it bCCosPe8 IYI 88tabli8hCd faOt thrt 8UQh t&UC8 VCFC ZWt in fWt properly collectible In acoo&dance vlth existing lava. ,To hold othervlse.voul4 be contrary to every prlnclple of equity an4 justice. It follovs, therefcre, that 8lnas the taw8 aolleoted vere on property not looated within the road dirtriot awl vere therefore vrongfully levied, assessed, colleclt@.and pal4 under a mistake of fact, the amount of suah taxes never beceape the property of the road dletrlct as agalnet the property owner.

Opinion Ho. o-1266, suprat Auet'ln Ratlotil Benk of Austin v.

Sheppard, (Wm. of App.) 71 S. W. (24) 242.

Texes that have been illegally exiiited may be iwaover-

ed by the ovuer even though auoh taxer haye gone Into the *3 Honorable Charles E. Reagan, Page 3

treasury and have been pald out by the disbursing offlaera. Austin X?ctlonal Bank of Austin v. Sheppard, eUpra. Thla De- partment has held in opinion Ho. 0-24g6, supra, that vhere a person mistakenly paye taxes on another's property, thlnk- dng he Is paying tsxee on hle own , 8Uah per8On may recover 8Uoh Eanomt from the county and it is the county's duty to nuke suah refuad. It 18, therefore, our opinion i&at, the per8on, referred to ln yaw reque8t, end undp the facts therein stnted, mfly properly be pal4 the pro rata amount of taxes wrongfuQy aolleated and mistakenly paid, upon the property not situated vithln the actusl boundaries of the diatrlat and that aA$d amoUnt may properly be pal4 out of the intersat and sinking f~n4 of said road dletrict. nmnaer we have full7 ~an8vered we tPUBt th6t in th38

your inQul.rlelJ.

c