224 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

iionorebla Geii. 2. ShepraFd 

Ccmptroller of Itiblicr hoounte 

ius tiu, :reras 

Dear Sir: 

Stiote and county did 

OOQedQ or 8he aale*" 

opinioa in rwpons* 80 tllsse quQQt~orlQ: 

thu status 03 the Stab and Cauntp 

h 8tate and CounOy tare8 are f6,r 

hat proasduxe ~hodc3 be taken to 

xoll2at Xf lruoh tame am sot barmd 

e dcm.e to eolleot the taxes ahorn on 

the tax roll?" 

?ie hare been fuxzdehcd with a copy of ths judggwmt 

referred to and it ia dated. Ootobez Zsl, 3.938. It is therein 
225 

Ronomble Gee. IL Sheppard, Page 2 

reolted that the defehdante were not indebted to the iaplaaded party defendant, the State of Taas, and thu last 

paxagxaph of the jud@nsnt reads a8 follower 

"And it is further orderad, adjudeed and deOreed by the Court that the purohaser of proparty 

0014 fm taxes herein shall take title froe and 

olear of all liene and claims of taxes againat 

suoh property dellnqusnt at the time of judggsnt 

in this suit to any taxing unit --hloh was a party 

herein or whloh has been semed with oltatlon aa 

xaqulred by this Aot." 

dxtlole 734Sb, Vexmu's hotate& Ul~il Etatutee, 

providin& a method of prooeduxe for the, foreoloruxe of dellnquent taxes and under whloh thlr aotlon apparently was 

brought ooatalna deotloh 10, reading as follower 

"The purcheser of property sold for taxes 

in euoh foreclosure suit e&l1 tske title frs6 

and Oleax Of al.1 lfene CUR? 018If66 iOr tEXQs aa&nat auoh propsrty dellnquant at the tlraa of 

juddmnt In eald suit to say taxing unit whioh 

was a party to eald suit or whloh had bean 8exVed 

with oltatlon In mid ault as reqnlrad by this 

lot. n 

FXOIE the OpiAiQA Of Judge Kb!cSatl iA the OcUa Of 

Yeida ~depUK%ent 3ehool pIat. YE. City Of &Xia, 13) E. 1, 

(2%) 118, we quote aa tollow~: 

*In this oonneotion, it I6 not oontended 

that the statuta under oon6lUeration uRdaxtakrs 

tllredtly to release any tax88 to any on6 but it 

la, oontanded In afieot that rlnce the kot autherix65 the ~iidntm to join (LB deiendlnts all 

other taxing units having liens against the pxoparty and further pxovldes that the purahasex of 

the property eolc¶ at such foreclosure ealo shall 

take title thereto free oi all liens fox taxee 

owing the tnxlng units that were paxtlee to the 

suit, it Is posalble for the representatlvos Of 

a taxing unit by taflin~ to appear aad file OlalB 
22 

Ron&able Ceo. H. Sheppmd, Page 3 

for the taxes due to th~?!leby viva anG release 

to the property owner tiic 11~ for suoh taxes. 

.'e reuogziize thrlt it 1s ~oosiblo, ondor the Aot 

In question, for moh repreucntntivrs, by their 

oareleasneaa or otherwise, to fall tn properly 

foreolose the liens held by the taxing unlto 

nblob they represe&, b\it this la a dangrrr lnhermnt in all ~ovtvnmont~l fwctiom prformed by 

human agents. It has always been poo:Sble for 

oommissloneral courts by failing to amesa property at ita full vfllue, or for attorneys by 

railing to properly prove up their da068 in tax 

auib, or for jurore by improperly rocrolvlng 

question8 or tact in rnror 0r the tax debtor, to 

thereby deprive e tnxlng unit of Its jdat dues, 

but the mere el-imtonae of this pos~bllltp does 

not rendor all. our ter Lawa unoonotltutional. 

It iu presumed that a21 public offiolalo will 

honeatly perioxm their ofrlaial dutlee, Anderson 

v. Polk, 117 Tex. 73, 297 5. Y. 219, and the 

statute and oonstitatla?al pro~islone in question 

m& bet oonstrued in the 11&t of thnt pxesuap- 

. When so mnstrued, tha atatute la not unoonat.itutional on the grounds stated.* 

If e propar ,citatloc me duly eexved upon the 

county tax aolleotor de pada, 9.n the first paxagxaph or 

Section 2 of said Artlcla 73l,5b mnd if all the proaeedlne;s 

in the aam were remler it is our opinion that the State 

or Texas and county of Crosby were precluded from malntalnl.ug any rult for the colleotfon of any taxes against the 

property demaribed in the judpant which were delinquent 

at the time such judgment wae taken. fIowever, it no 

oltatlon wae momed, the state belne notified elmply by 

re&stered mall in the maner auggeeted in the seoond paxagxaph 0f Seotlon 2, the aatlon 0r the State and County r0r 

euch taxes would not be barred. KS believe the above 

euffiolmtly enawers your first question. Your tfr. Faxxar 

has today adrio& ua that you will not need any Qxpxerelon 

from us in reply to your second and third questions.