Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1944 )

. ...
1
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
3ear 3lrr
.
;‘?!a~
the tax ?olluotor accept tee mneg ~8
tonderad and Issue radeqtim reooipt’? ‘~iottld
the
~aymint of'the tax aal;tm lspsmnoo of the radeap-
tiO5 reOei>t QUt tit10 baO$ ifit0 the OSi&iAti CWAer'"
x5 O-
OPWOA rr0. 0423, wricte5 by .mkt0ut
Attorney Genernl cflsna2. LBpriS,and approved by ?irst
.4asiatcult .utoPnog oeneral ‘# . P. l4oore(artenitms Chief
Justlee of the :3ugrera Court of Taxa&), we aeld in part
06 r0rm8t
uR@dcuxptloA
under nrtiala 7283, Civil X.atutee,
my be h0a n0 a matter of right lf ereroloed within
two yews after tae purahssertadeed la fllod for
reoord.
*Atiiole 728&b of the Revised Civil Statutes
allow redemptisn 08 a sattor of right 0517 if exer-
cised within two years rrom the date or sue.
“Artiole 7328, civil 3ta&utmt, outlining the ..
pracleealngto follow in tax suite, proridea that if
0&y biWt 90 fYJld f%Ad PtlFOhCtQtd by the 33tet0 3.8 AOt
redeemedwithin the time gax6oribsd by lw, tne
a b sr iif
lSbal.i srll the 8am at publh? outory to
the higheot bidder for oash aS t&o psinoipal entrmoa
to tt;eoourthouee in the oounty whorain the lentilioe'
after duo AOtfOts. It itapovided t!u%tthe sheriff
ahall mu& tie amuat reoeired fws mch sdla to the
State %'rhreaa~XCir
titer b%b3tf;l~ t&s il.WUAt of the
oountp taxoe, iAtW88t AAd penalty or the oounty tax
which he @ml.: pay to Fhc onu~tp treaswr.
Wmasnted dirrortmtig, the gtostion is whether
the oounty tar oolleotor end OomgtrolXar,jtrlorto
a&y oala bp ths snsrlfi, can waive the oaln and acrcept
thit CnXOSt, ~OAAlti08 curdiAt0re8t.
“Ia the 0830 of L30gue VS. i?tete, 57 3. ‘.i. 34, _
3up. Ct., affirma 22 3. ~2. t75, hiAd had basn sold
for taxes for lU8l+ und bid In by tho .:t9te. 2&eresl%ur,
the State brou;;htsuit sK!ainstanother clalzmnt For
rjuas1681 taxea, L)Y~11 ds athars f!Lermftxr nssesocd
against 9x3 lnnd. ``soovery mes allmod, it bei.rq aeld
that ciiuLtate ic no ZPI:~ welved it6 ri,+ts acqulrod
uAc9r th3 Eels.
!!onorabla
George il.Zhepy.ard,
peg:03
“In state vs. :iutley,278 2aa. 206, the ~;uprwic
Court of ,YewSotidaoheld t&t SO loner aa ri;zhto cd
othsr gartles did not fntervane it was within the
power or Ghe Bounty trocraurar, a8 the went OS the
dtate, to ;;rra.itradamptlon,althou& the period
allowed 3s Q ratter OS right had expired.
“In Sahroiber ~8. Y@ynlhan, 47 A. 851, tho
2uprem Courb OS ?enrmylranlaheld that a purohase
at a tar 6al1 bg the caunty weo abandoned by %t
whara tba land was not thereafter ohargad by tha
ooedsslozmra with OOtmty and road taxall,as prwlc?ad
by its law, bub was u@moasad aa before and sold Sor
’ the tares so a38sasatl.
Court OS Misaissipgi,an Aot 0S 1875 provi&kzq that
tbo Stats would abandon all olalmo w.tdorIts prs-etint-
fng tar titles ii the mmara would pay the tares for
1374; and in deSatit of paymmt provision belncjmde
for a resale OS aald lands, It wa6 beld that uhero cho
Jtate &ad bought lands far taxes in 1867, and %