PRICE DANIEL 

November 13, 1948 

Hon. Howard Traweek 

County Attorney 

Motley County 

Matador, Texas 

Opinion No. V-717 

Re: .The validity of the 

drscribed sale of County land under a Commissioners’ Court order 

which reserved the right 

in the Court to reject 

Dear Sir: 

any and all bids. ~- 

Your request for an opinion on 

ject reads, In part, as follows: 

the above sub- 

“Attached hereto you will please find 

copies of Order NC B. 1434, entered by the 

Commissioners Court of Motley County on August 25, 1948, and Order No. 1440, entered by 

the Commissioners Court of Motley County on 

October 8, 1948. 

“As will be noted from the contents of ’ 

Order No. 1434, It was entered appointing a 

commissioner to sell certain lands belonging 

to Motley County, the sale to be made at public auction and on terms provided by the 

court in the erder. You will also note that 

in the order the Commissioners Court reserved the right to reject all _blds on said lands, 

this being done, through a desire .to protect. 

the county’s interests in obtaining an adequate price for the land. 

“Thereafter the sale was publicized in 

,the local newspaper and by the distribution 

of hand bills throughout the county. The 

sale was held on the date and at the t imo 

designated in the order of sale and a number of prospective buyers attended and bid 

~11 the land o The members of the Comissionl rs Court had convened ia~a called session 

immediately prior to the sale and had agreed 

among themselves as to the lowest price that 
Hon. Howard Traweek - Page 2 (V-717) 

they deemed acce 

P 

table to them for the sale 

of this land. A 1 members were present at 

the sale and when the high bid of $70.00 

per acre was received and all other bidders 

had withdrawn from the bidding the members 

of the Commissioners Court notified the commissioner that the bid of $70.00 was acceptable to them and the land was knocked off to 

this high bidder. Immediately after this 

sale the members of the court convened in 

the Commisrloners court room and entered Order Nob I%C and accepted the purchaser’s 

check in the amount of .$9,306.50 as the 

dewn payment on said land, and the commlssioner entered into a written contract of 

sale with the purchaser, the sale being accerding to the terms set l ut in Order No. 

1434. 

“The opinion of your department is desired on the question of the validity of t,his 

sale under Order Ho. ,1434 by the Commissioners Court of Motley County. Does the fact 

that the Commissioners Court by its order reserving the right to reject all bides have the 

effect of invalidating or voiding the sale 

b the commissioner? That is, was Order No. 

1 t 34 veld under the provisions of Article 

le. 15?7? If so, what effect, if any would 

Order No. 1440 accepting the bid, and the 

acceptance of the purchaser’s down payment 

of $9,305.50s hava in validating the sale by 

rat if icat ien?” 

The orders of the Commissioners’ Court ef Motlsy County of August 25, 1948 which you attached to your 

letter provide: 

“ORDER NO. 141 

Wotion made by J. N. Fletcher, seconded by L. N. Standefer, and passed by unanlmous vote of the court, all members being 

present 9 that H. N. Courtney be appointed 

commissioner to hold a public auction sale 

at the court house door in Matador, Texas, on 

October 8, 1948, between the hours of 2200 

. P. Y, and 4~00 o’clock P. X. for the purpose 
Hon. Howard Traweek - Page 3 (V-717) 

of selling to the highest bidder the county 

farm now gowned by Motley county, and deacribed by metes and bounds as follows: . . .I’ 

(The land is then descrlb4d. Since no question Is raised as to the sufficiency of the 

ds;;;z;lon, that portion of the order Is 

“The sale of said land to be made subject to the fallawing terms and conditions: 

Tha Commissioners court of Motley County reserves the right to reject any and all bids; 

. . . 

“The Commissioner shall be authorized 

to exeaute a general warrant deed and zany 

other instruments necessary to convey fee 

simple tit14 to said lands, which said deed 

and ~in4trument are to be executed by said 

commissioner after. the acceptance of the 

highest bid by the Commisslonsrsf Court .‘I 

Wotion was mad4 by J. N. Fldtcher, and 

seconded b 

R. E. 

M.~ H. Leary, that the bid of 

Camp g 411 in the amount of $70.00 per 

acre, making a total of $18 613.00 on the 

county farm, consisting of 365.9 acres 

accepted, said bid being the highest bid 

b4 

made this date at the public auction of said 

lando held by Ii. H. Courtnsy, commissioner 

for Motley County. Motion carried by unanimous vote, all members of the court being 

pres4nt. 

“It is therefore ordered by the Commissioners Court of Wtley County, Texas, that 

the bid of R. E. Campbell, in the amount of 

$18,613.00 on the county, farm lands and mad4 

this date, the 8th day of October, 1948, at 

public auction held by R. H. Courtney as comnissioncr for Motl4y County, bc accepted, and 

the sa14 by said commissioner is hereby ratlfled and confirmed, said lands bsing describ4d 08 f4llowsr 
Hal. Howard Trawe4k - Page 4 ,(V-717) 

4.@4scrlptlon of land as In Order HO. 

1434j.l' 

Article 1577, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, authorizing the sals of any real estate of a county provides 

as foll4uS: 

“The commissioners court may, .by an 

order to be entered on Its minutes, appoint 

a commissioner to sell and dispose of any 

real estat4 4f the county at public auction. 

The deed of such commissioner, made In conformit y to such order for and in behalf of 

the county, duly acknowledged and proven 

and recordsd shall be sufficient to convey 

to the purchasers all the right, title and 

interest and sstate which the county may 

have in and to the premises to ba convsyed. 

Nothing contained in this article shall au- 

.thorlz4 any commissioners court to dispose 

of any lands given, donated or granted to 

such county for the purpose l f education in 

;II; zther manner than shall be directed by 

. 

It se4ms well settled in this State that ths 

4414 of county owned land must be at public auction and 

in th4 mann4r set out In Art D 1577, V. C. S. See th4 

f4ll4wlng authorities: 

Ferguson v. Halssll, 47 Tex. 421 

Llane County v. Johnson, 29 S. W. 56 

Llano County v. ~Knowles, 29 S. W.lz9 

HarSd? C;$ty v. ,Nona Mills Cs., 

Spe;lcei v. Levy, 173 S. W. 550 

This does not mean, however, that th4 commlssioners ars without authority to confirm or’ reject a sale 

mad4 at public auction fer as polntsd out in Attorney 

G4n4ral’s Opinion No. 2849, datsd April 29, 1931, the CommIsslon4rs’ Court still retains g4neral control ov4r the 

sales including the power to rejact any sale mad4 by the 

appeint4d commissioner at auction and the prespectlve purchasrrs should be put on notice that all bids are subject 

to the approval of the Commissioners’ Court. We quote 

the follewing from Attorney General’s Opinion No. 2849: 
Hon. Howard Traweek - Page 5 (V-717) 

“The appointment ,of d commissioner to 

hold the sale does not’ mean thit all the 

powers of the commissioners’ court with refsr4nce to sales of real estate are thereby 

delegated to the special commissioner. The 

court still retains general control, including the power to confirm or reject anyI;; 

made by the commissioner at iuction. 

action should be evidenced by an order entered in the minutes of the court. The action of the court in, this respect is analogous to the control which a probate court retains over administratorls sales. There is 

a discretion re;;arding sale of county lands 

vested in the commissioners’ court by the 

Constitution and laws of the State, no part 

of which can be delegated. Logan vs. Stephens 

County, 98 Texas 283. J’or this reason the 

ba mt on notice. bv a 

effect in the notice a 

s ar4 subiect t dour- 

& the 

added) 

c- 1 court. (Emphasis 

According to the facts submitted by you the 

sale WA made at public auction by a commissioner appointed under the provisions of Article i577 .V, C. S., 

and the highest bid was approved by the Comm i ssianers’ 

Court. In view of the foregoing authorities, it is our 

opinion t.hLit the two orders of the Commissioners’ Court, 

copies of which you enclosed, are valid. 

This opinion Is limited to the question of 

the authority of the Commissioners’ court to reserve 

the right to approve or reject any and all bids submitted at a sale of county owned land at public auction in 

the mode set out in Article 1577, V. C. S. 

Sale of county land must be made at public auction in the mode set out in Article 

1577, v. c. s. The Commissioners’ Court in 

its order appointing a commissioner to sell 

the land at public auction may provide that 

all bids are subject to the approval of the 
Han- Howard Tra*reek - Page 6 (V-717) 

Commissioners8 Court. Ferguson v. Halsell, 

47 Tsx. 421; Attorney General's Opinion No. 

2849, dated April 29, 1931. 

Yours very truly, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

Jn:w:wb 

APPROVED: