Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1942 )

b OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN Honorable George H. Shqyard clomptrollerof &blio Aawant8 Austin; Texas Dear sir: opinion NO., 04B26 Bet Whether t .: .Wehave your request jedt, The faot8 relating to yo tlmaifldavlt of``J.B..Tolive Oollaotor or Hudapeth county, 'By virtue of a oer 'vertisedror reld Order or exaot aoreags in or in the order or sale, ei, State &loenrredLand t aaid land. Sump haa ith this orrioe and the The oontraot 8 #2b%&oh has been paid amount or taxes oolleoted un48r the order of male as determIne under the oorreoted aoreage, wa6 )156S.OQ, and the amount of State Tax was $371.02 or .2371$ or the total; The Staten* portion Or the oout Of eurver would be .2571$ Or $2Sg.SQ or #56.55, rhioh amount has been with-held iron remittanoe to the state Treaaurer on the June report.* Booorabla korge H. @eppertl -- Page 2 We have examined the oertlfled oopI@e or the tax judgment and order of sale In thin ease, whioh you submitted with rour letter, and no authorization oan be found therein ror making thI8 survey. The promlure for tar rult, and sale thereuudar, 18 provided b Chapter 10, Title 128' (Art. 7519-7845 Inol.) Re- tired 0%~: I Statutes of Texa6 1985. 19arhere In said Ohpter nor elrewhere In the Statute8 of Texa8 have ne beea able to rind any provision wlliohauthorIzea lItker the 8~herfftor the tax a88e88or - oolleotor to employ a eurveyor to survey and plat land sold by tax deed, nor do we rind any provIsIon au- thorlsiog the aeduotion of the expenres of any ouoh euney rrom the prooeede of the tax sale. ArtIo1.073531preeoriber the fees of the tar oolleo- tor in 8uoh oases and Artiole 7552 provide8 ror the fees to . be pid to the oounty or diatrlot attorney the aberitf or oonetable and the ,dlrtrIotolerk. Fioprovirlon Is made for rees to the oountg surveyor or eny other aunepor in oa8e of land sold by tax deed. ArtIole 7311 makes provi8Ion ror 8ur- vey by the oounty wrveyor or land to be sold for tax68 by summary ~18 and It Ie to ba noted that eaId.artiole provide8 that *mid rarvey to be meds at the expense of,the paroha8er* rhIoh olearly pxeoludee the porsIbllIty Of the surveyorbt tee8 ~;es;``dqaae8 being deduoted from the prooeeda af~the sale of We olte said Artlole 7311 ae persuasive to IndI- oate a l~glalatlve intent that the oost 0r survey6 upon tax sales are to be bormby the purohaser of the land and may not be paid out of the prooeeds of ssid sale. That the tax-a8reseor - oolleotor must pay into the State and County Treawrle8 all honeys oolleoted by him,’ lx- oept suoh items aa he I8 exprersly authorized by 8tatuta to pay, ratadeolared by the Ciroult Court or A peals, 5th Cirouit in Citirene Eational Dank Taoo, Texae v. P'p dellty ana DepoeIt Co~lpanyor Maryland (194lj.,117 Fed. (2d) 852. In Texae Land and Cattle Coz@any v. Eamp~ll County 61 9. 2. 339 (1901) the 00urt in dsrinl~g the duty Or the taX oolleotor stated on page 334: u. . .After the oolleotion, the oollaotor I8 required by the law under penalty, to make oollec- tion and promptly report and remit all taxes oolleot- ed by him to the State and County Treasurers In full without exoepting oases In rhloh suit&, however promptly filed, msy be Instituted for the recovery thereof.* mi . 1 Honorable George H. Sheppard -- Pago 8. Xt 18 our opinion that the deduotlon of $50.55 made by the Honorable J. B. Tollter, Bherlff and Tax Asaeeeor - aolleotor or Eudspeth aounty, rrom the state.8 portion or the prooeeds of the tax sale waa wlthout statutory authority and Oannot bs allowed. We are not pastsingupon the validity of the tax 8ale inrnnt herebb ror in amount less than the amount or the tax . I _," Yours very truly A'ITORNETGElVKRALOF TEXAS ! : ‘. .