Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE Al7ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN
Eon. A. E. Slokerson
county Auditor
Conroa, Toma
Dear Girt OPlnlon HO. 0
Se reoeiosd your letter or
whioh you request our opinion on the
*When a taxpayer set
by a oompromire jlaa ju4
by the dish-lot
mre to settle tllir
rnitfg the 18snan00 the district anb of the writ ai oounty courts. 8 rtatute relating to the tim OS the e on tax ju4&meBtr, enwa1 atitrtter in suoh orders of this reapeot. 1 statuter or Texam, rsmdr em r0im
0r 8 diatrl0t 0s 00anty 11 tax the oosts In every ent Ia 8 been rendered, roe ouoh jud@sent and 1, Retimed Oitll Statutea~ rettdm expiration of twenty daya frcm and ltion of a final jub$ment in the d%r- nty oourt, and l tter the overruling of any motion therein for a nau trial or in arrest of jtbipimt, if no eupetreUea6 bond on appeal or writ of error has bea filed and ap,protr&, the 010x% r-1 issue exeoution upon atah judgiment upon sppll~tlo~ of the ruaaeaeiul #rty.*
Eon. A. E. :XIokereon, Page 2.
A olose reading of these statutee reveals that e&u- tlon'my Issue after the adjournment of the court or after the expiration of twenty days froaand after the remlltlon 0r a final judgment. The tiw within which the execution my Issue is.regulstea by the @ate of the're;#;Io; drnye judg- ltent and not by the data of Its entry. . . .
The 4wt.y to Issue an ereaution intposad on the olerk after the adjounmeat of the oourt doea not arise until appli- oetlon b made fqr the srlt by the uaner cf the judgment. i.e., the plaintiff or hle The owner of the judgment,, trana- feree. has exoluaire ooutrol urer Its 0oUeotion an4 Ia tha only person entitled to 0011 for the writ. Arthur vs- Driver, 127 6.W. 891; 18 T. J. 559.
Having pointed out above the earlledt tlm rlthln vhioh the order of sale miy lame, wu would further obeene that at any time thereafter tha oounby attorney may oauso the order of sale to 'Issue unless the jtatlgmmt ia paid.
Youre wiry truly ATTQRURY QlQJ7jRAL Or TEXAS