*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEYOENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

flonoroble Luther C. Johnston

County Mitornsy

Andrrron County

?alartins, Texasi

m0uia oltatioh b

.' tax ruits be publlrhed

B. L. Vol. 10, p.

ra o? mi~lur&8 miitn,a 6d.b eta ter th6 taxer er a? fears, ar8 he name OS the lot@ bs unkmwm ?JCdb, Vernot)'e Annotated 850 quote from Artlele (Aots 28211, 46th Leg., p. 1494-a. @I. IBQQ),, OirS.1 3tatutes ae ?0ll0ws:

694

Honorable Luther 0. Johnston, Page 2

aSec. 3. The laws gorernlng ordinary fore- closure suits In the District Courts of this State shall oontrol the auaetion of parties, lssuanae, of procw~s and other prooeedlngr in and service t&x mlit(l, aare and exoept as herein otherwise The following

provided. apeolal prorlslonr shall apply to and govern the question of parties and lrsuanee and servioe of prooere in tax wits:

(I . . .

*(a) Where any defendant in such ault 11 a nonresident of the Stat+, where the name8 of the owner or ounem OS said property are unknown the suit for the plelntltt to the attorney filing taxlug unit, where the residence o? any defrndant and where the auto 18 unkuoun to suoh attorney, heir8 OS any deoeared perron are oi the defendant unknown to ruoh attorney, and ruch faotr are ro- oited in the petltlon, eenioe of notioe br pub- lr hereby uthorlred Uoatlon In eaoh and all o?

such oases, . . .- tloer rhnll be oubllrh An rose newwamr DU#?& ln the county in uhlo!? the Dronerty la loo d one t l e rt

121 oon#eeutI e we2 ii% ~&%on Fz be not leas &n Sour&eon (14) dam Drlor to the

on aua “Sco. 13. The prorirlonr OS thlr Aot rhall

be ausulatlre o? and In addition to all other

rlnhte remedies to A&oh M tulnn unit mat Reytmed Cltll Btatuter of 1926 rhall govern .tr brbught under thlr hot exorpt as herein provided.* (Underscoring ours).

Ronorabla Luther C. Sohnrton, Page S

In the oaso of State et al. v. Bagbj’s Estate et 120 S.W. (2d) SW, the following language 1s foundr al.,

*The provlelons of Chapter 10, Title 122 (tax- ation OS R.C.S. where applloable will oontrol the prooedure questions in tax foreolosure suits here presented. 40 T. J. p. 241; Young v. Jackson, bO Tax. Clv. App. 351, 110 S.W. 74, writ refused; Rour- ret v. Settegart, Tex. Cit. App., 210 S.W. 219; Art- lole 7542, R.C.9, o? 1925, under this Title provides that ‘whenever l l l the uama o? the owner or owners OS said l * * late be unknown, the@, upon affldavlt of the attorney for the State aettlng out that the l l l owners are unknown to the attorney for the State after inquiry oannot be asoertalned; raid shall be olted and made partier part2er defendant by notloe * l *.I This artlole then prescriber fora of euoh notloe and~prOtldea for publloatloa onoe each week Sor thre

It la olear from the l uthorltler elted ebova that 734Sb, upra, ~111 prevail the provision@ of Artlole over the 7842, supra , should they be in ooniliot. provisions of~Artlole IOU are therefore advtred that remloe o? notlae by publloa- if 8-e be publirhrd tlon shall be suffloient ior two (2) eon- saoutive weeks in oompllanoe with,Seotlon 3(d) of Artlole ?%5b, supra, when said Artlele la applLoable.

Any langunge oontained in our Opinton No. O-2927 that 1s oontraxy to what we have uld in this opinion 1s here- by expressly overruled.

Yours very truly Br fk% ATTORNEY GEK%AL