OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY QENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Eoaorablo C+eoao H. Bhoppard 

Oomptrollar of Publ.lo Aooounts 

hwtln, Texnr 

Doar Slrr 

Opinion x0. 0-9~ 

ROI A ralo 

Thlr ir in en8wor to 

Mstriot Court af 

t COlItB,WNllIting 

y fhs tax jud@wNlt 

sd in Ravarro 

flnt rals bid not bring tha 

y and interest, 1s rush ealo 

these additional qgestlonrt 

a Slate hate a llan on the land, by 

o tax judgment, for the amognt et taxar 

still unpeiat 

wDoe8 ths State have thr right to hold another 

tax sale, under the tax judgment, end sell tho land 

ror the amourit of taxes rtlll unpaldTn 
krebls horgo IX. Woppard, Peg0 8 

Aa you hare not msntlonsd any other taring nnlts, ws 

easum that this was a suit for State aud Countrtexos end thet 

EO other taxlag units w6re la lsedsd 8sdsr tha toru d Artiole 

9348b, Vorno~'8 hnotatea 01 vl 1 StetutoB. NO undorstan4 that 

the oourt did not inoorporato in its judgment a flndlng of the 

reasonable fair value of the lsnd In qusstlon, rhioh it 1s aothorlred to do ia scme eea88 andor Ssotlon 5 of said Artiolo 7848b. 

Ths l tatutos we en ooneornsd wlth en Artlolw VW!6 

and 7328, Rsrlssd Clril Statutes af foxas, whloh are Qisoaswd 

later in this oplnlon. 

FO ieel that oar 8nswsr to your qatoationm must be eontmlld by the eeso of WIlli- t. Mmtin, 85 8. Y. (24) lC8b 

(writ or 6rror refused). In that oaso land that had bssn fonolossd on In a tax suit was offomd for sale by ths aharlft at l 

ta x sels, and l party nansd WiUis aedo a bid ln an emuat lesr 

than the taxes duo, and thersupon ths County Attorney made l Beoond 

and higher bid for the State in tho amount OS the taxes due, but 

the Sheriff rsfossd thr County Attorneps bid on ths ground that 

the County Attorney oculd only bid in the event thsre ras *no 

bidder,' and the Sheriff aooeptsd the lorer bid b 8'11118, but ths 

Sheriff then changed his rind indrefusod to eueouto l doed to 

Xillis; end Vi11118 brought en action for maabau8 egahmt the 

Shedft asking the cant to 6ompslths Sheriff to l s8outa tho dead. 

The Dlstriot Court refused. to madama the Sheriffi and that judgwnt we8 afflrmsd by the Court of Oirll Appeals (et Beeu~t)~ e& . 

without &ring any othsr rseBon8 Ghisf Yustiob Walker, who note 

the oourt’s opinion, relfed 8ol0ly on Attorney Gonsrel's oplalon 

Ho. 2884, dated Mny 16, 19S2 br Xr. r. 0. EoKenrlm, A.ssiatant 

under Attirney General All.&, l sd qpote4 l xtensl~~4 fmr lt end 

mlda Ve hro &TOD r a r til uo nl sider +ti to this o n opinion by Mr. 

Hooi6..and bsll'svs that hs has oorrsotlf oonstnamd Artlsls 

. . . 

In rlsw of ths feat that thr oourt in th6 ease of Ufllls 

v. Hertln SO wholo-heartsdly ,approrrd Hr. bE6nslr18 gplnlon, ws 

bellrre we ars sntltlsd to rely on ths rsasonlng ia that opinion; 

and as it 1s nooessery to read nearly all of the opinion In order 

to fully appreoiate it, wo will quota from it extenskrely, as fol1orsx 

*Deer Sir: Your oommunioatlon ot the 4th instant, 

addressed to the Attorney tin4Uel is es follow~t 

"10 are hereby requesting an opinion from your de, 

pertmat with reference to the following question on 

texetlonr 
Bonorsblo Ooorgo Ii. hoppsrd, Pago S 

g*Undor Artlolos 9326 and 93e8 1985, Rovlsad Stat&es, 

iB the Stata of Taxes, thrOU&l it8 dtir l thOr i2.d ~OntB, 

P 

arnLtt+d 

ntoroet 

to bid the amount of texos, ooBt8, paelty and 

fnoludd in e judgont of foro~los~, w&on en 

oatolda bidder bids a aam 1~8 then the emtmt of seid jagmerit?’ 

Vho question you iB a dlfiloult ono to 

enswu. Article 7326 

for the rocorery of al 

for tho bringing ot suit8 

Intsrost, ponelt~ and oosts 

dw end for tho foroolosuro of the tax lion upon hid8 

which ero liable for t&o sa&. 

that suoh suits shell be brought 

Said article also providea 

a8 an ordinary foreclosure 

for debt with averments a8 to the oxistehao of a lion 

upon such laud for suoh taxes, and shall pra 

aont for the for8olosuro 0r sail lien and f lf 

for jud - 

ma e of se 

lands es under ordinary oxooutien. 

~Artfole 7328, or so &uoh thorooi es 18 portlnoet 

to your Inquiry, Is aa follows: 

**The propar parsons, Inoluding all rooord lion 

holders, shall be made partiee defendant In 8uoh suit&K, 

and shell be sorvod with proooata and othor brooo8dIhgB 

had therein as provldod by law In ordinary foroolosuro 

alto In the district oourts of this stats; end in ease 

forob~osure an order of sale shall issue end the land 

Bold thorouedor as in other aa8ol of ~oreolo8taro but 

if tho dofondant or his attorney rhell, at ehr t Lo 

boforo the sale, file with the offloer In whoso hands 

any suoh ardor of sale shall be pleaed, a written roquest that the roporty dosorIbod thorsdn shall bo dlridod and sold P II smllor tracts thon (than) the wholo, 

together with the doeo?I~tIan of suoh mallor traots. 

thon 8Wh of fioor shell roll ths lends in moh uubdItIBIon8 a8 defendant mar roqwft, and fn moh sees 

shall sell only as many subdirlslon8, as near as mey be, 

as are noooseary to ratisty the judgment, Intorost, 

r 

naltp and oosts; end after the papant of the taxes, 

ntorost, penalty and oosta ddjodgod against it, the 

remainder of the purohaae prloo, It any, ahall bs paid 

by the sheriff to the clerk of the oourt, out of whioh 

said oxooutlori or other final pmoess issued to be romined by hie BQbbjOOt to the order of the aourt for a 

perlod of two years, UnleB8 otherwIse ordered by the 

oourt, after whioh time the l ouft mey order the same 

to be paid to the State Treasurer, who shall hold aano 

In truet to be paid to the owner against whom said taxes 

Of 
Efononbl8 Ooorgo E. 8hopperd. Peg0 4 

,_.. 

were asso8sed; pmrlded, My one ol&&ming the 8sm0 l h01l 

make proof of his olain to the sati~eotlon of the State 

Trmsuror dthin three Jams after tie ralo of said 

land or late, after which the aaao shall be governed 

by the law ngulating osohaat. 

**If there shell be no blddor for Buoh laud tho 

bounty ettornoy, Sheriff or other 0rri00r selling the 

seam, shall bid said property off to th8 State for tho 

amount of all taX88, penalty, Intorost and oosts adjudged againat such property, and the district clerk shall 

lmnodfately maLo report of such sale in du&ioato, one 

to the.Ooaptroller and one to the oomissioaers oourt, 

on blanks to be proscribed and furnished by the Conptroller. Where the property is bid off to the State, 

the sheriff shall make and execute a deed to the State, 

using forma to be prosoribod and furnished by the Camptroller, 8howlng in oaoh case the amount of taxes, 

Interapt, penalty end ooete for whioh Bold, and the 

clerk*s fess for recordlne deeda. He ehnll oauso such 

deeds to be recorded In the records of deeds by the 

county clerk In hi8 county, and rhea SO reoordod, shall 

forward the same to the Comptroller. The county Olork 

shall be entitled to a fee of one dollar for reoording 

each suoh deed to the State to be taxed as other ooets. 

When land thus Bold to the &ate shall bo rodeomed the 

tax collector shall mnko the proper dl8trIbutlon of the 

mmoeys received by hIn In such redemption, paying to 

l eoh offleor the amount of eostr found to be due, and to 

the State and Bounty the taxes, interest sad penalty 

found to be dua oaoh rospeotirely.* 

-ThO qU.OtiOIl fIlTOlT.8 t&O Pl-OpOr OOKIBtNOtiOU Of th. 

language, *If there shall bo no bidder for such land. * 

This msens, of owrao, the partioular land which Is being 

sold under ardor of sale issued on a tax foreclosure &d&- 

ment . Doe8 the aord, ‘bidder’ mean one who bidr for the 

land althou& he bids less than the amount of the judgment; 

or does it moan or lsply one who bids a sum equal to or 

exceeding the account of the State.8 Judgment? I have been 

lurab,lo to find a case where the question ha8 been passed 

on by the caurte, and hence will undertake to answer the 

same In accordance with what 1 oonoelro to be adopted 

rules of UOIl8tNOtiOll. 

“‘Another ocoaslon fcr con8truln~ a statute Is whore uncertainty as to its meaning arises not alone from mbiguity 

of langua-;e employed, but f ram the faot that &ring a literal 

Interpretation to the xords ~111 lead to such unreasonable, 
. . 

Bonorablo Ooor60 s. 8hOPpa?d, Page 6 

unjust or ab8urd ronoepuonora u to amp.1 a aonviotly that 

ip 

h . 

.ao"l; not ham been Intended by the Le6ialaturo. 

., 8.0. 214, p. 959. 

We quote the above baoauso It may be aaid that tha 

laagusga of the statute, *If than ahall ba no bidder' Ia 

parfaotly plain and unambiguous and nquirr no oonatruotion. 

In this oonneotion, I aall attention to the hollowing 

taken from ths aams authority,--)rIa: 

**It orten happen that thtr tm4 intention or the 

lawmaking body, though obvious, Is not expraaaad by thr 

language amployad In a l tatuta vhsn that languaga la 

given Ita literal msa515g. In auoh oaM8, the oarrying 

out of the lagtalatlre intaat, rhioh, aa wit bava seen, ia 

the prima and aole objaot of all rules of 0058tNOtiO5, 

oan only be acoompliahed by dapartura from tha literal 

Intarpretation 0r tha language employad. Hame, tha 

oourta are not always oonfinod to the literal maaning 

0r a statute; the real grpoee and Intent o< the lagia- 

;~t~eGwil$ prevail over the literal import or ths worda.v 

. l .) sso. 222, page 967. 

?7umerou8 authorltiea from other at&es and tha 

United Stats8 and $0188 from Texas arm oited in support 

Or ths above dootrlne of tba taxt. 

"'The peaELOU5t rti0 Of 0058tNOtiOn iS t0 rind 

out the 1aglalatWm Intuat, rhiah la tha law aad muat 

prevail.' Xllia County v. Tbomp~osk, 95 Texas 28, 32. 

"m LO6iSlatiVO intbnt 005#titUtO8 the hr.' 

HoXaarr ~a. City or Galveston, 58 Taxaa 554; Ruaaall la. 

hrquhar, 55 Tesaa 955; Boo1 va. Uedamyar, 50 Texas W9; 

Dada05 ta. Bunton, 81 Texam 374, 28 8. W. 1061. 

=*8trIotly apeaking, tbsre la but ona rula or oonatruotloo, and that is the legialatire intent imat govern; 

all other aanona or interprstatioa, 80 oalled, are but 

bruunda or argumnts reaortad to for the pur?oas of aaasrtainlng the true 0r the In.* 

ttil1.s County ~6. Lam ounty, 90 *x68 606, 40 S. 111. 404; 

Imparial Irrigatioa ~a. Ham, 104 kxaa 396, 

138 S. U. 575, 581; lcoy VS. Sohneidar, 110 Texaa 369, 221 

9. Y. 880. 

l *Tha intention 0r the Legislature in enftoting a law la 

the law Itam.' Edward ~a. Xorten, 92 Texas 152, 153, 

48 s. 1. 792. 
Konorable &or60 E. -ppd. age g 

wfTha greet fundeiaaetal rule in oonatrulag statutes 

la to aaaarteln end gito erfeot to the Intent or tha 

lagIaletw . * 36 CIC 1106, 2. 

aTa ara unable to bring ouraalroa to tha belier that 

15 ell oeeaa whore the stat0 has a jud(asnt oondaaeihg 

land to br sold for thr payment of taxes, the Legiatituro 

Intended the Stata should be rlthout the paw to protaot 

lta Intaraat and that of the oouhty. But it la our 

opinion that whet la meant by the languego or the a tatuto, 

‘Ii there shell be no Qiddar for auoh lead* the oouaty 

attorney, ahariff or other oftlosr selling the aem, shell 

bid said propaxtp 0fr to the Stat0 ror the amount or a11 

texaa, panelty, Ihtaraat and oorta adjudged ageinat auoh 

propartr, aeesa that if them iu ao person who bids the 

amount or the judguant agelnat said leml. Although ha 

mey bid leas, It la mad8 thb duty or ona or tha orrloara 

mimed to protaot the Intareata of thr State by bidding 

to tha extant authorlaad by tha statute abort quoted. Ii 

any biddar should bid the amunt of tha State*8 judgrnant 

egainst the land or mra, the State than cannot bid; ror 

In rruoh oiroumateaoaa the Mate rould be oo;apstlng as a 

pBre aurohaaar when it Is authorized to go no farther 

then la nacasaary to protect Its interesta. 

pla think there la language IA raid Artlcla rhioh 

tends to support thla conatruotion. the artlole ateto 

that in aaa8 0r roraoloatue, en order 0r sale shell 

Irsua and the land sold theraundar es In other eaaaa or 

roraolomre. It further provider, after tha offioar 

axaoutiag the ardor of ma10 her raoelrsd the prooaeds 

ead rroa tham paid the taxes, Interest, pentitr and ooata 

adjudged against the land, a8 to what bs shall do with 

the excess. nowhere la there any prorialon praaoribing 

the proaadure to be followed in a oear whara the lend 

does not bring the a-mount of tha udgaant against it. 

In a5 ordinary foraolosura aalo, t tiols 2212, rhloh 

ralataa thereto, provide8 a prooednra In avant the prooaada of the property sold doss not aatiaiy the judguaat, 

directln~ the aherlrr to rake tha balanoa as under oxacution, using the unaatlarlsd order or aala as M ax80utionl lo auoh alternative I8 prorldad for In the atatuto 

governing delinquent tax aalra under order of Bela. From 

the pro~Ialona 0r the 8tatutaa direeating the sherirr to 

pay rrou tha proceeds the taxae, lntaraat, penalty and 

ooat4, and the *raneIndar or the 2urohaaa price, If any* 

to tha olark of the OSUrt, there arises the clear ispliaatlon that the land la to bring at least enough to satlafy 

the judguant . IA case the land la bid In for the &i&a, 
. . 

; 

fir0 

. .ml 

Eonorable @aorge H. Sheppard, Page 7 

tha bid mat be ror the ruli amount agal5st the la5d, 

and provision la rurther made that when said land #hall 

be redeemed, ‘the tax eollootor shell Wr the pmpar 

distribution of the mone~a rooeired by him in auoh aedeaptiOA, paying to aaoh ofrioar the almunt of eoata foUAd to 

be due, and to the State and county the taxaa, Interest 

and penalty r0UAd to b4 due eaoh reepeQt:Vely.’ so it 

appear8 that whether the land la sold to an outside 

bidder or bid In ror the State, prorialon la rude ror 

the ultimata payment I5 full of the taxes, interest and 

penalty. 

*It la obvious that in the event the land 16 sold 

to en outside bidder ror less than the amount adjudged 

agalnat it, oomplloatlona and dIffloultlea will erlse, 

and the Legislature has rurniahad no gUide ror their 

eolution. 054 pert or tha Judgment la State taxe8, 

aaothar part oounty taxes, and still other sums whloh 

go to maka up tha total oi the luwent ara aonpoeed 

or 40Ot.s 0r dirrerent orrioera. In Such a oaae the 

judgment aould not be paid In full and all the parties 

at lntaraat oould not get all their money. Whet should 

be done in tbqt oasa? Is the State’s Interest superior 

to the oounty’a interest or will the ~monay be prorated 

between them? Are the orrloers to be paid firat, or 

are thair alaim to be postponed AAt tha olaIa8 of 

the Stat0 and oau5ty bare been paid? xi paid rirst, 

it night result tlut there would not be enough to pay 

even the oaat8 going to the otiIoer8, and there would 

not be anough lart to l atiaty the olalma both of the 

State and the oounty. I think it masonable to e8auma 

that the LegIf!latura intended no auoh eompliaatioas; 

othanisa, it would by appropriate anaotznent hara provided ror than. 

abo are awara tbst thI6 0pIAIon la In amfliot 

with an opl5lon sent out I’rom this department on tha 

6th day of February, 1923, but with such opinion we 

oannot agree and rrom It we respactrully dissent. 

. . . 

-Assuma that the Stata has Judgment ror4OloSlAg 

a tax lien to the ano>nt of $250.00 05 land worth $5,000.00. 

Suppose that at the aherIrt*a sale the 8u.m of $10.00 la 

bid by a~ autsldar, and the land is kaookad oii ta him. 

Under the oaastructlon whioh we are oombatfng, and in 

4cOOrdaAO4 with what laay be the literal 1anJuage of the 
Honorable George 8. She-:perd, Page 0 

BtstUtO, the Stata~a hands mu13 be tied aad Its offioarm 

OoUd only stand by, ~alplaaa, and no the $tato*e interests 

aeorlflq#d In that manner. After the aalo, It would be 

the duty of tha l herlfi to exeouti a dead M the Jur*haaer 

and thbn the taxpayer rould hare two years in vhl*h to 

redeem his land and he could redeem It by paying double 

the amount of ouch bid. Suoh a thing oould easily happen 

and no doubt has happened heretorora. We cannot bellere 

that the Legislature intended any auoh absurd resulta, 

*-%a reiterate our conoiuaion, In enawar to your 

question, that by the term ‘bidder l used In tha stat-to 

giving the State the right to bid 15 lands sold under a 

tax Judgment, the Legislature meant a person who bids 

at least the amount of the Judgment against the land 

taxes, interest, penalty and ooata, and If no auoh bidder 

appaar6, then the groper officer may bid In the land 

ror the State as the law provides; and that no person 

would nacasaarily be considered e *bidder*, within the 

meaning of the statute, so as to preclude the propar 

offlear iron? bidding same in for the State, mlaaa his 

bid Is for a au9 at least sufficient to aatlary the judgment agalnat the land.” 

Hr. YoKanzle*a opinion was written berore the passage of 

meld Artlole 7345b, prorldin- for the Impleading oi other taxing 

uaita, and ror the aourt Incorporating lr. its jadgment a finding 

of the reasonable ralr value of the land, but thoaa matters are not 

Iarolved in this case, and m ballare the reaaonln~: of hIa opinion 

applies to the question b8fOre us. To construe his opinion es holding that a bid et a tax 8aIa la void if It 18 for leas than the 

amount or taxes due. 

The bid in this case was clearly void, the would-be purchaser being e private person and not a taxing u5lt, and it naturally 

follow8 that the sale was void, and therefore invalid, because there 

oould not hare bean e sale without s bid. It likewIse tollows that 

the sheriff had 50 authority to execute the deed. The atatua Or 

tha parties :a the sme as it was barore the sale, and the State 

l til has its lien and the right to hold a tax sale under the judgoa5t I5 the sage oacnar as If the other asla had never been held. 

or oouraa, this opinion doss not apply in a casa in which 

the court inaorporated in its judgment a finding Of tke reasonable 
Eonorablr G8orgr 8. Shopperd, Pago 9 

;~~g=ftum or tha land at an mount lam than the aacunt of the 

. 

me brlisve that the ioregoing answers your questlonr. 

Your* very truly 

Al-TORlW GEEEiAL OF TEXAS 

.,l%--f@& 

Caoil C. Rotech 

Assistant 

CCBrOO 

ATTORNEY GECZ'~', 03 TEXAS