Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

PRICE DANIEL
November 13, 1948
Hon. Howard Traweek Opinion No. V-717
County Attorney
Motley County Re: .The validity of the
Matador, Texas drscribed sale of Coun-
ty land under a Commis-
sioners’ Court order
which reserved the right
in the Court to reject
any and all bids. ~-
Dear Sir:
Your request for an opinion on the above sub-
ject reads, In part, as follows:
“Attached hereto you will please find
copies of Order NC B. 1434, entered by the
Commissioners Court of Motley County on Aug-
ust 25, 1948, and Order No. 1440, entered by
the Commissioners Court of Motley County on
October 8, 1948.
“As will be noted from the contents of ’
Order No. 1434, It was entered appointing a
commissioner to sell certain lands belonging
to Motley County, the sale to be made at pub-
lic auction and on terms provided by the
court in the erder. You will also note that
in the order the Commissioners Court reserv-
ed the right to reject all _blds on said lands,
this being done, through a desire .to protect.
the county’s interests in obtaining an ade-
quate price for the land.
“Thereafter the sale was publicized in
,the local newspaper and by the distribution
of hand bills throughout the county. The
sale was held on the date and at the t imo
designated in the order of sale and a num-
ber of prospective buyers attended and bid
~11the land o The members of the Comission-
lrs Court had convened ia~a called session
immediately prior to the sale and had agreed
among themselves as to the lowest price that
Hon. Howard Traweek - Page 2 (V-717)
they deemed acce table to them for the sale
of this land. AP1 members were present at
the sale and when the high bid of $70.00
per acre was received and all other bidders
had withdrawn from the bidding the members
of the Commissioners Court notified the com-
missioner that the bid of $70.00 was accept-
able to them and the land was knocked off to
this high bidder. Immediately after this
sale the members of the court convened in
the Commisrloners court room and entered Or-
der Nob I%C and accepted the purchaser’s
check in the amount of .$9,306.50 as the
dewn payment on said land, and the commls-
sioner entered into a written contract of
sale with the purchaser, the sale being ac-
cerding to the terms set lut in Order No.
1434.
“The opinion of your department is de-
sired on the question of the validity of t,his
sale under Order Ho. ,1434 by the Commission-
ers Court of Motley County. Does the fact
that the Commissioners Court by its order re-
serving the right to reject all bides have the
effect of invalidating or voiding the sale
b the commissioner? That is, was Order No.
1 t 34 veld under the provisions of Article
le. 15?7? If so, what effect, if any would
Order No. 1440 accepting the bid, and the
acceptance of the purchaser’s down payment
of $9,305.50shava in validating the sale by
rat if icat ien?”
The orders of the Commissioners’ Court ef Mot-
lsy County of August 25, 1948 which you attached to your
letter provide:
“ORDERNO. 141
Wotion made by J. N. Fletcher, second-
ed by L. N. Standefer, and passed by unanl-
mous vote of the court, all members being
present 9 that H. N. Courtney be appointed
commissioner to hold a public auction sale
at the court house door in Matador, Texas, on
October 8, 1948, between the hours of 2200
. P. Y, and 4~00 o’clock P. X. for the purpose
Hon. Howard Traweek - Page 3 (V-717)
of selling to the highest bidder the county
farm now gowned by Motley county, and deacrib-
ed by metes and bounds as follows: . . .I’
(The land is then descrlb4d. Since no ques-
tion Is raised as to the sufficiency of the
ds;;;z;lon, that portion of the order Is
“The sale of said land to be made sub-
ject to the fallawing terms and conditions:
Tha Commissioners court of Motley County re-
serves the right to reject any and all bids;
. . .
“The Commissioner shall be authorized
to exeaute a general warrant deed and zany
other instruments necessary to convey fee
simple tit14 to said lands, which said deed
and ~in4trument are to be executed by said
commissioner after. the acceptance of the
highest bid by the Commisslonsrsf Court .‘I
Wotion was mad4 by J. N. Fldtcher, and
seconded b M.~H. Leary, that the bid of
R. E. Campg 411 in the amount of $70.00per
acre, making a total of $18 613.00 on the
county farm, consisting of 365.9 acres b4
accepted, said bid being the highest bid
made this date at the public auction of said
lando held by Ii. H. Courtnsy, commissioner
for Motley County. Motion carried by unani-
mous vote, all members of the court being
pres4nt.
“It is therefore ordered by the Commis-
sioners Court of Wtley County, Texas, that
the bid of R. E. Campbell, in the amount of
$18,613.00on the county, farm lands and mad4
this date, the 8th day of October, 1948, at
public auction held by R. H. Courtney as com-
nissioncr for Motl4y County, bc accepted, and
the sa14 by said commissioner is hereby ratl-
fled and confirmed, said lands bsing describ-
4d 08 f4llowsr
Hal. Howard Trawe4k - Page 4 ,(V-717)
4.@4scrlptlon of land as In Order HO.
1434j.l'
Article 1577,Vernon’s Civil Statutes, author-
izing the sals of any real estate of a county provides
as foll4uS:
“The commissioners court may, .by an
order to be entered on Its minutes, appoint
a commissioner to sell and dispose of any
real estat4 4f the county at public auction.
The deed of such commissioner, made In con-
formit y to such order for and in behalf of
the county, duly acknowledged and proven
and recordsd shall be sufficient to convey
to the purchasers all the right, title and
interest and sstate which the county may
have in and to the premises to ba convsyed.
Nothing contained in this article shall au-
.thorlz4 any commissioners court to dispose
of any lands given, donated or granted to
such county for the purpose lf education in
;II; zther manner than shall be directed by
.
It se4ms well settled in this State that ths
4414 of county owned land must be at public auction and
in th4 mann4r set out In Art D 1577, V. C. S. See th4
f4ll4wlng authorities:
Ferguson v. Halssll, 47 Tex. 421
Llane County v. Johnson, 29 S.W. 56
Llano County v. ~Knowles, 29 S. W.lz9
HarSd? C;$ty v. ,Nona Mills Cs.,
Spe;lcei v. Levy, 173 S.W. 550
This does not mean, however, that th4 commls-
sioners ars without authority to confirm or’ reject a sale
mad4 at public auction fer as polntsd out in Attorney
G4n4ral’s Opinion No. 2849, datsd April 29, 1931, the Com-
mIsslon4rs’ Court still retains g4neral control ov4r the
sales including the power to rejact any sale mad4 by the
appeint4d commissioner at auction and the prespectlve pur-
chasrrs should be put on notice that all bids are subject
to the approval of the Commissioners’ Court. We quote
the follewing from Attorney General’s Opinion No. 2849:
Hon. Howard Traweek - Page 5 (V-717)
“The appointment ,of d commissioner to
hold the sale does not’ mean thit all the
powers of the commissioners’ court with ref-
sr4nce to sales of real estate are thereby
delegated to the special commissioner. The
court still retains general control, includ-
ing the power to confirm or reject anyI;;
made by the commissioner at iuction.
action should be evidenced by an order en-
tered in the minutes of the court. The ac-
tion of the court in, this respect is analo-
gous to the control which a probate court re-
tains over administratorls sales. There is
a discretion re;;arding sale of county lands
vested in the commissioners’ court by the
Constitution and laws of the State, no part
of which can be delegated. Logan vs. Stephens
County, 98 Texas 283. J’or this reason the
ba mt on notice. bv a
effect in the notice a
s ar4 subiect t dour-
& the c- 1 court. (Emphasis
added)
According to the facts submitted by you the
sale WA made at public auction by a commissioner ap-
pointed under the provisions of Article i577 .V, C. S.,
and the highest bid was approved by the Comm i ssianers’
Court. In view of the foregoing authorities, it is our
opinion t.hLit the two orders of the Commissioners’ Court,
copies of which you enclosed, are valid.
This opinion Is limited to the question of
the authority of the Commissioners’ court to reserve
the right to approve or reject any and all bids submit-
ted at a sale of county owned land at public auction in
the mode set out in Article 1577, V. C. S.
Sale of county land must be made at pub-
lic auction in the mode set out in Article
1577, v. c. s. The Commissioners’ Court in
its order appointing a commissioner to sell
the land at public auction may provide that
all bids are subject to the approval of the
Han- Howard Tra*reek - Page 6 (V-717)
Commissioners8 Court. Ferguson v. Halsell,
47 Tsx. 421; Attorney General's Opinion No.
2849, dated April 29, 1931.
Yours very truly,
ATTORNEYGENERALOF TEXAS
Jn:w:wb
APPROVED: