TMEATTORNEYGENERAL 

OFTEXAS 

December 19, 1950 

Hon. Bascom Qiles, Conunlssloner 

General Land Office 

Austin, Texas Oplnlon~No. V-1134. 

Re: Right of the State to 

recover for minerals 

taken from forfeited 

Dear Sir: school lands. 

You have requested an opinion as to whether 

the State Is entitled to the 011 produced on school 

1ands'"during the time In which these lands stood forfeited" for nonpayment of Interest and, if the State is 

entitled to the 011, 'the portion of such 011 which 

should be demanded from the operators of the producing 

wells situated on the tracts of land" forfeited. 

The certificate of facts accompanying your 

request reflects that the land In question was orlglnally sold under a "watered grazing classification and 

forfeited for nonpayment of Interest by the Commlssloner of the General Land Office on April 17, 1943. Subsequently, and during the period of forfeiture, an 011 

and gas lease was executed without State approval, and 

production was obtained. 

' It Is well settled that a forfeiture of land 

by the' land commissioner for nonpayment of Interest 

"restores the land to the public domain and reinvests 

the title in the state." BoykIn v. Southwest Texas 011 

& Gas co.. 256 S.W. 581 (Tex.COIIUQ.ADD. 1923): Lawless 

V. Wright; 86 S.W. 1639 (Tex.Cly.App: lg&jJj~Gulf Production c'o. v. State, 231 S.W. 124 (Tex.Clv.App. lg2I 

'error Oil Co. of Texas v. Reese-Corrlhdr 

Lumber Co., 18KKiYFs.w. 115). 

The rr,c~ht. 

. ..- * * 1.1 of reinstatement 

:hase TArt. 5326a, V.C.S.) i Art. 5326, V.C.S.) or repurC Is not a title." Wilson v. 

Cone 179 S.W.2d 784 (Tex.Clv.App. 1944); Mac 

ET'114 S.W.2d 120 (!h?X.Clv.ADD. 1940): : 

:Rae v. MacRic ~~ ~..~~~ Boykln v. Southwest Texas 011 &-Gas ‘Co., sup~h) liobtk 011. Co. of 

Texas v. Reese-Corrlher Lumber Co 

%rlght, suprz 

-~-., supra; Lawless v. 
Hon. Bascom Glles, Commissioner, Page 2, V-1134. 

In Boykln v. Southwest Texas 011 & Gas Co., 

supra, the court said: 

"Under that article ,&t. 5423, R.C.S. 

1911, now Art. 5326, V.C.S,-/ the act of the 

land commlssloner In forfeiting the purchase 

of land has the effect of restoring the land 

to the public domain of the state. The provision that 'the purchasers, or their vendees, 

may have their claims reinstated on their 

written request, by paying Into the treasury 

the full amount of Interest due on such claim 

‘UP to the date of reinstatement, provided that 

no rights of third persons may have Intervened' 

In no way weakens or affects the proposition 

that a forfeiture restores the land to the 

public domain and reinvests the title in the 

state. Lawless v. Wright, 39 Tex.Clv.App. 26, 

86 S.W. 1039 (writ of error refused); Jones v. 

Roblson, 104 Tex. 70, 133 S.W. 879. Likewise, 

we think the provision In chapter 160 of the 

Ac.ts of the Thirty-Third Legislature that the 

'owner of such land at the date of forfeiture*** 

shall have the right for a period of ninety 

days after notice of classlflcatlon and appraisement of his land *+* to repurchase' It, 

'In no way weakens or affects the proposition 

that forfeiture restores the land to the public domain and reinvests the title In the 

state.'... 

" 

. . . . 

"The statute In terms gives the previous 

owner only the preference right to repurchase 

the land. It gives him no right In the land. 

It gives him a right, In preference to others, 

to acquire rights in the land--the title. From 

the date of forfeiture until the date of the 

reaward of the land to him by the state, the 

ownership Is out of him and not In him. It IS 

In the state." (256 S.W. at 582-583) 

Since the land belongs to the State after forfeiture and before reinstatement or repurchase, the taking of minerals from the land during this period without 

authority from the State fs actionable under Article 

5325, V.C.S., which provides: 
Non. Bascom Qlles, Commissioner, Page 3, V-1134. 

"If any person who has no authority or 

right to do so . . . removes any mineral . . . 

from the school land belonging to the public 

free school fund, judgment shall be rendered 

against the defendant In behalf of the State 

In a sum of money equal to the value of the 

substance so . . . removed, which shall be collected as under execution; and when collected, 

the money shall be remitted to the State 

Treasurer, and by him credited to the fund to 

which the land belongs." 

You are therefore advised that a demand should 

be made upon the operators of producing wells situated 

on the tracts of land forfeited for an amount of money 

equal to the value of the minerals removed without the 

State's authorization during the period of forfeiture. 

SUMMARY 

Upon forfeiture for nonpayment 

of Interest by the Commissioner of 

the General Land Office of "watered 

grazing" classified land, the title 

reverts to the State. Persons taking minerals from the land during 

the period of forfeiture under a 

lease executed during such period 

without authority from the State are 

liable to the State for the value of 

the minerals taken. 

Yours very truly, 

APPROVED: 

H. D. Pruett, Jr. 

Land Division 

PRICE DANIEL 

Attorney General 

Charles D. Mathews 

First Assistant 

JPL:pwb