THE ATTORNEYGENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

Honorable Ernest Guinn 

County Attorney 

El Paso, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

opinion No o-3552 

Re: Delinquent TE?%es on schools land BE& 

of whichxas forfeited ~1$wZllohw66 

respurch66e8. ., 

We have from the General Iand Office a certificate showing~the foLIowing 

facts: 

That Section 32, Bbck 80, Tqwnship 1, Certificate 6961, T. Ek P. 

Ry. Co., 640 acre6 in El Paso County, wB6 awerded October 4, 1924to 

Sam 0. Miller on 6ppliCEtiOD:flb2a in thrkia Off* Septhkar 2g19!?4 

to purchsse da Section at$2.06 jper acre without 6edhlemmt, 66ms 

having t&en CbSEified a6 Mineral. ana Grezlng and appraise8~at.$2.00 

per acre;. 

That Sam 0. MZller.conveyd said %ctioti 32, with~%th&"lana, to 

FelixP. Miller by instrument dated April 6, 19251 

That .the aale covering said Section 32 ws6 forfeited July 1, 1927 

for non-payment of interest; 

That upon request ana psymsnt of the required fee ida Sectionj3Z& 

as containing 640,acree, was reappraiied September 18, 1927 by the 

Commissioner of the General Iana Office at $2,&O per acre;.; and time 

ws6 awarded Dscem'ber 30, 1927 td FelixP.Mlller,on apaication filed 

in the Iand Office December 9, 1927 to repuSqbase said Secti& 6t 

$2.00 par acre under the provisions of Ch6pt&.:94 of En Ad amoved 

March lp;l925; 

TMI da Seoticm 32, as mmtsining 640 acres of ma in ~1 Paso 

County, now stands on the rec0rd.s of the Lend Office in the hems of 

Felix P. Miller. 

Taxes assesseaa&.n6tthis land. for the years 1926 to 1929 became delin9uent 

and have never been paid. You request our opinion in your letter of May 12, 

1941, as to whether the present owner of said. land mu& psy the taxes 

assessed against said land prior to its repurchase in December , 1927. The 
taxes cuzxerned sre those accruing for the year .1&and 1927. It WII.I 

be r.oYcadl that taxes for both of those years had been aesesfied against 

the i.sr.l prior to the forfeiture on July 1,1927. 

Article 5326, Revisea Civil Statutes, reaas d psrt a6 follows: 

If sx:; port533 of the icterest 03 any sale 6hdd not be pia when 

am, the land shall be 6UbjeCt to forfeiture by the Commies~rf.m&ering on the wrapper containing the papers %ed Forfeit&," or words : 

of similar wrt, with tl;e date of a-uch action an3 sign it officially, 

ara Zereum the land ax3 all peyfcents skull be forfeited to the 

St&$,sr‘: +;>fi lands sixli be dffered for sale on a subsequent sale date. 

Ir axy "sse where lads hgvlvb been forfeited to theState for the nonp3yv:r.t of interest, the pwchaserp,or their vendees,'may hsve their 

~23s rsiastrted cm their written~regue'sti by paying Into tha Treasury 

the %il amount of interest sue on such claim up to the dste of rejnd 

ststemect, provided that no r%ghts of third pe$sons may h6ve~lnterven@d~ 

In all such cases, the original obligations and penalties shall thereby 

become as bi@ing as if no forfeiture had ever occurrd. . . .,? 

r . 

In the case of GerlechMercantile Company v. State, 10 S. W. (26) 1035, 

Writ of error refused, it was held that where state lands were forfeited 

for failme to pay interest and later repurchased under Article 5326s; 

Revised Civil Statutes, the tax liens due the State at the date of forfeiture 

would rem-k unimpaired and in full force and effect. 

Our opinion follows that your question must be answerea in the affiruetive. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNFXGEKERALOFTEXAS 

s/GlemR. Iewls 

w 

Glenn R. Iewis 

Assistant 

AT=l'ORiEYCENERAL 

APPROVEDOPINION XNMITTEE 

BY B. W. B. CHkIRMAN