. . . . **OFFICE OF**  **THE AlTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  **; G~~~~R**  **SELLERS**

**, “** **&mMrr Crnr** L** **. .** 

. Opinion Ho. O-6635 A’ :.

# 402

LBsupplemated raquested the rcotus1 situatloc*,

.

the County OSIIldol,go is the owner ia trttot for the other taxiag waits, is lt possible for the sherlif to correot his retWa in order to m&e it oollfor~ with the true facts and eon- ~QNLI with his deed?.:.

**l&s 1 The

### perthat ~ovlsiona of Article 734sb rri 8~

%ec. 

### 9. IT thi property be sold to auy taring unit uhloh is a party to the judpent uuder decree of Qouz%Ia aald suit, the title to said property shell be bid In andhold by the taxlag uult purrhaslng sme for the use sad benefit of its&X and 8l.l other tsxlng mlto vhich are parties to the suit acd whloh hzve bcea SdjUdg#d 1~ seld 2u.U t0 have tat lfcns 8gaiUSt 8UCh

.@rOpWty, PI'0r&A OUdIn PPOpOrtlon to the amuat of the tax liens in fsvor of said rsspeotlve tt&ug units as astabllsked by the $x&mat In said suit, end costs end expeasea shall not be paysble until Betleb suck taxiug unit 80~purchsasiugso, .a,” The questZon hexe to be decided Is whether tho errmeous return ads by the eherlf-f s!!mln# t.kt the State of 5%x1&8 WCS the ‘purchaser at th.oforeclzisure sale vould lavclldhte the clear vordicti: of the sherlff~a daed thst tho purchaser vas the Comty of X.i.dul.g~Wdcr the ebov? quoted provloions of .the statute. cl., In the .biutri 6f oltiias et al., Pm~Otlt~OtS8l'~, et (Cl% &p.) 23 9.#. (+)a r 6!8, the &?emORt Coilrt Of Clvll hpPe&ls stated the rule of lsv lu Texss to be 8s foZloimt

”

..,‘~ The*

vslIClty of 8 sheriff’8 shle ucdOTexecution or order of sale is not dependent

. up& the rcgulsrlty of his return. The total failure to mke ths returu does not affect the sale. Willis ,v. Smith, 66 Tex. 31, 17 9.W. ?47. Therefore, a defectlvs Peturn could not have that .effoct. Thefailure of the sheriff to exaaute,end dellvctr~e propor and V8lZd deed, If In f8Ct his deed vss defeotlve, did UOtdestroy the purchaoer’r Interest acqufred under the 6816. Ulllls v. smith, 8upre. tr *IQHlggl.~?3

v* Rwdeges (Tex. Civ. App.) 98 Wt. 350;35?, It w&a8nS.d: *A valid jUdgmen%execution, end sale are all that is required to pas8 title to property sold at oxeoution sale,r

&onorable D. p. HoKee, page 3
pay&sat or purchase moc~yand facts neoeasary to entitle the purchaser to a &oed-being kh?Swn. ~laix~~ea v. Ileel, 67 Tex. 673, 4 3.~0 31~. .a, It has been held that a shsrlff riccyamendhis deed, oven after’he goodsout of office. Flsmming v9 Powell, 3 Tex. ? 5’;’ 3ee .&so, Certer Y. ikndy (Texm CiV. Appm 351 3.W. ?Tl.” 7 he tbove opmon u&ar&arrlrGl in the case of ryler Y. Ikndersoa (Cio. A?p.), 163 3.N. (gd) 170 (error rpmeed) a8

## r0u0w8i

- It is said in 18 Tax. Jur. pa 754, 

## Wte re~ulnrity 

## 0rthe~~~~~irr~s return te not essential to the validity or a aale under executLoa mndthe title of the pumhascr does not dapend thereon. l** In fe3t an e&tic faflure to z&a ‘areturn does not affest tha sale.8 Toe last expreoslo;r of the quotatior? Is based upon the hoUi%g ln%rigra v. Eont~omcrg, 9.7X. Civ. App., ?? 3.F. 26-6&i, ia which that co ’& cited Willis v. Emith, 66 Tex. 31, 17 3.N. rS7."

.. These eases afr¶.rm a long cstablishcd d.wtrine rclating to the purchaserat au execution aale which was ndopted by the’suprens Court in the case of Beady QrHaT. Certer &Boa., P69 3.W. 1037 (Con. App.). ~. : t:on a As the kbotance o: tltlb bt exeou

## 0% passes upon the pmchaaerla tompllanco ulth his bid, the deed of the sheriff 10 pwely ml~sterlal, is merely evidence of the right,

... Thus it umybe seen that the equitable titla passes to the kctual purchaser at the execution nale irrespective of the irre&ularity la the sherZff ’~s return, or in the doed itself, but the deed lr. simply the lnstruiwnt perfecttng end venting the legal title to the poperty so sold 1~ the actual purchaser at the sale.

In %hecase Bf Hol~~a, et al;, Y. BuClraar,et al., t 67~Tex.lQ, 3 S:W. 452, it is held: I.

.,

.xosorae. D. PaHobe, pege 4 

# 405

-

‘5%~ purahasar’s titie at execution sale under a valid judgment, the proceedings prior to sale being regular, becomes perfect on the exeoutlon anddelivery of the deed, and cannot be af ’fected by any Irregularities IR the return madeof the execution by the sheriff. Therecitals In the doed, If In conflfct mith any facts stated In tho sheriffs’ return, vi11 control. 8 ”

. ,Raeedupon the asaumptlon that the judgments and exeautions Issued thereon were In due and lepl folm, when the County of IiIdalgo purchased at foreclosure sales tho various properties In questlori which were 

## GOId and bLd tn c by the repreeeotatlve of E!ldelgo County m&r tho provlsIoos of Section 9 of &tIcle Q45b, V.A.C.S., l525, aa arznded, the County of IIIdal&oacquired title to the lands In question in trust for Itself ’, the State of Toxos andall other Intervening taxlag units and the sherfff would have Qright to socad the defective roturns madethareoa la order to .clafify the recorde, although under the holdInga of the courts above sat forth, such proceedings would not be eoseutlal to .v&lldatc the title.

. Yours very truly ATTORlibN

GRNRRG

OPTEXA3

CKR rdb

-