Texas Attorney General Opinion: O-3059 Page: 2 of 6
This text is part of the collection entitled: Texas Attorney General Opinions and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
230
Honorable H. C. Petry, Jr., page 2
Article 7151, Revised Civil Statutes, contains the
following a
"All property shall be listed for t xation boe
tween january 1 and April 30 of each year, when re-
quired by the assessor, with reference to the quantie
ty held or ownet on the first day of January in the
year for which the property is required to be listed
or rendered. Any property purchased or acquired on
the first day of January shall be listed by or for
the person purchasing or acquiring it. * * *
A reading of the above seems clearly to Lndieste that
a county may not tax tangible personal property brought into
it for the first tie after the first day of January of the
year in question. Persuasive on this point arot Humble Oil
and Refining Co. v. State 3 5. W. (2A) 859; Ohilrees County
e State, 92 s W. (ad) o011 'Winters vs. Independent Sohool
District, 808 8. 'W. 594 Bardesty Bros. v. fleming, 57 Tex.
595. Aeeordingly your question is answered in the negative
as to the cattle brought into the county subsequent to January
first.
As to the cattle which were in the county on enuaery
first we resah a different conluston.a In order to show the
sourt's holding in Eartoesty v. FlemMnag, suprae as well as
in Clapitt vs. ohnson, 42 8. W 866, we quote at soms length
from the letter opinion, as follows:
" * * * In Hardesty v. Fleommng, 7 Tex. 895,
cattle from the Indian Territory had drifted across
the Texas line into Hnaford county upon the open
range end the owner kept employes n saId county,
about eight miles from the state line, to prevent
the battle from going further south. The catle
remained in Eansford county about five months, and
were there on the 1st day of January. In consider-
ing the question of the owner's liability for taxes
in Eansford county, the supreme court said * t
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: O-3059, text, February 24, 1941; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth260285/m1/2/: accessed June 15, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.