Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1946 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Honorsbla Bsecom 011~s
Commissionerof the General Ls~d Office
Austin, Texas
Dear Slrr opiAloA Ho. o-7135
Re: Should the Land CoPlirsloner
The question you
determliitlonis as foU.g~sr
should the Ls
cuted after
s question are briefly
lme prior to f921 vaa
land in Culberson County,
ferrad payment plan. Delin-
rem taxes accrued against this
ram 1921 to 1933, and OA Agrll 8,
s foreclosedby a tax judgment ad-
ra J. Bell, deceased, and~hls
1936, and the sheriff executed a deed to the
State on June 16, 1936. On March 19, 1939, the LsAd Commissioner
forfeited the land for non-paymentof interest under the pro-
visions of Article 5326, R. C. S., 1925. Subaequentlg,the
sheriff of CulberaoA,CouAty,after the forfeiture, advertised
snd sold the land to a third party vhose name has AOt been given.
The pertinent portion of Article 5326, Revised
Ron. Bsscom Olles - Page 2
Civil Statutes of Texaa, 1925, as of the date vhen the facts
arose, reeds as follovs~
"If sAy portion of the interest on aAy
sale should not be paid vhen due, the land shall
be subject to forfeiture by the Commissionerenter-
ing on the wrapper containing the papers 'Land
Forfeited',or words of simller import, vlth the
date of such action and sign it offlclally,and
thereupon the land and all payments shall be for-
feited to the State, &Ad the laads shall be offered
for sale on a subsequentsale date. IA aAy case
vhere lands have been forfeited to the State for
non-payment0:.interest, the purchasers. or their
wr;;;,r~;~ve their alalms reinstated on their
by paying into the Treasury the
full amount of interest due on such claim up to the date
of reinstatement,provided that no rights oi third pcir-
sons may have intervened. . . .’
We shall rlrst aonsider the effect of the aherlff's
tax deed executed on June 10, 1936 to the State of Texas. Actually,
the sheriff could convey A0 more Interest than the heirs had on
that date. The heirs did not possess the legal title. The legal
title remained in the State ao long as the purchase price remained
tm id. 2 Tax. Jur. 32; Thompson v. Cutton, 96 Tex. 205, 71 S.W.
54r f ffulf,West Texas lkPacific R. C. v. Cornell, 84 Tex. 541,
19 S.W. 703; Parker v. Brown, 80 Tex. 555, 16 S.W. 262; Austin
v. Bu~gan, 46 Tex. 236; Ximbro v. Rsmllton, 28 Tex. 560; Lam-
bert v. Weir, 27 Tex. 362; Smlth'e Mmlnistratora v. Oar%a, 15
Trx. 150; Wi field v. Smith, (Clv. App.) 241 9. W. 531; Spear-
man v. Wms, T civ. App.) 207 S.W. 572; Peterson v. Rector,
(Clv. App.) 127 S.W. 561; Levlest v. Wright, 86 S.W. 10391
Campbell v. RcPsddeA, 31 S.W. 436.
The Supreme Court of Texas iA State v. Eke, 206
S.W. 342, held in a case involving school land that "the title
remsins in the State, and the purchaser has only the right to
acquire it by continued oompllsncevith the conditionspre-
scribed by the statute."
Prom the foregoingauthoritiesve conclude that
the sheriff'sdeed dated June 10, 1936, did not disturb the
legal title to the land. It merely divested the heirs of IM
J. Bell of whatever equities or rights they had.
8.
BOA. Bescolp@lea - Page 3
Section 10, Article 5421``3, Vernon's Annotated
Civil Statutes of Texas, vestisexclusive authority in the U
Commissionerto issue wards on sahool land after the School
Lsnd Board has accepted the best bids submitted;therefore,the
sheriff of Culbereon County has no pover'or euthopity whatsoever
to divest the Skate's title to public school land. The lend vas
forfeited on March 19, 1939, under the provisions of Article
5326, supra, and OA that date full and complete tFtle became
vested in the state of Tcxes.
We hold that the second sheriff's deed executed
to a third person sometime after March 19, 1939, is vholly void
and of no force or effect. The grantee (third person vhose
name has not been furnished)under this latter deed acquired no
Interest whatever in the land. For the foregoing reasons alone
ve conclude that the Land Commlsslonerla vlthout authority to
accept en applicationfor reinstaterrant under the clrcum.etencea.
A second reason vhy the Land Commissionerehould
not recognina the applicationfor reinstatement1st the grantew
under the sheriff'stax deed doee not come Vlthin the class of
'purchasersor their vendees* as contemplatedby the provisions
of Article 5326, oupra. The original purchaapr vaa Ina J. Bell.
Under the particularfacts, the grantee could not be a vendee
of the purchaser. Thus, it Is the opinion of this department
:that your question should be aneuered in the'negative.
Yours very truly
Assistant
JRBT
0
APPROVED
OPINION
(cOYMllT#~
IIY 0”11”“.”