PRICE DANIEL November 

### 13,1948

Hon. HowardTraweek County Attorney Motley County Matador, Texas Opinion No. 

### V-717
Re: .Thevalidity 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 madeat public auction and on terms provided by the court in the erder. Youwill 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 timo designated in the order of sale and a number of prospective buyers attended and bid ~11the lando The membersof the Comissionlrs Court had convened ia~a called session immediately prior to the sale and had agreed amongthemselves as to the lowest price thatHon. HowardTraweek - Page 2 (V-717)

they deemedacceP

table to them for the sale of this land. A 1 memberswere present at the sale andwhenthe high bid of $70.00 per acre was received andall other bidders hadwithdrawn from the bidding the members of the Commissioners Court notified the commissioner that the bid of $70.00 was acceptable to themand 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 NobI%C and accepted the purchaser’s check in the amount of 

### .$9,306.50 as the dewnpayment 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. ,1434by the Commissioners Court of Motley County. Does the fact that the Commissioners Court by its order reserving the right to reject all bideshave the effect of invalidating or voiding the sale b the commissioner? That is, was Order No. 1 34veld under the provisions of Article t le. 15?7? If so, what effect, if anywould Order No. 1440 accepting the bid, andthe acceptance of the purchaser’s downpayment of 

### $9,305.50s

hava in validating the sale by ratificat ien?”
The orders of the Commissioners’ Court ef Motlsy County of August 25, 1948which you attached to your letter provide:

“ORDER NO. 141
Wotion madeby J. N. Fletcher, seconded by L. N. Standefer, andpassed by unanlmousvote of the court, all membersbeing present 9that 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 purposeHon. HowardTraweek - Page 3 (V-717)

of selling to the highest bidder the county farm nowgownedby 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 madesubject to the fallawing terms and conditions: ThaCommissioners court of Motley County reserves the right to reject any and all bids;

. . .

“The Commissioner shall be authorized to exeaute a general warrant deed andzany 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 mad4by J. N. Fldtcher, and seconded b R. E. M.~

H. Leary, that the bid of Camp411 g in the amount of 

### $70.00per acre, making a total of 

### $18613.00onthe county farm, consisting of 

### 365.9acres accepted, said bid being the highest bidb4
madethis date at the public auction of said lando held by Ii. H. Courtnsy, commissioner for Motley County. Motion carried by unanimousvote, all membersof 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 andmad4 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 f4llowsrHal. HowardTrawe4k - 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,.byan 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, madeIn conformit y to such order for and in behalf of the county, duly acknowledged andproven 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 mannerthan shall **be** directed by

.
It se4ms well settled in this State that ths 4414 of county ownedland must be at public auction and in th4 mann4rset out In ArtD

### 1577,V. C. S. See th4 f4ll4wlng authorities:

Ferguson v. Halssll, 

### 47Tex. 

### 421 Llane County v. Johnson, 29 S. W. 

### 56 Llano County v. ~Knowles, 

### 29S.W.lz9 HarSd? C;$ty v. ,Nona Mills Cs., Spe;lcei v. Levy, 

### 173S.W.550
This does not mean, however, that th4 commlssioners ars without authority to confirm or’ reject a sale mad4at public auction fer as polntsd out in Attorney G4n4ral’s Opinion No. 2849, datsd April 29, 

### 1931,theCommIsslon4rs’ Court still retains g4neral control ov4r the sales including the power to rejact anysale mad4by the appeint4d commissioner at auction andthe 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. HowardTraweek - Page 5 (V-717)

“The appointment ,of d commissioner to hold the sale does not’ meanthit 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;; madeby 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- 1court. (Emphasis

According to the facts submitted by you the sale WA madeat public auction by a commissioner appointed under the provisions of Article i577 .V, C. S., and the highest bid was approved by the Comm issianers’ Court. In view of the foregoing authorities, it is our opinion t.hLitthe 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 ownedland at public auction in the modeset out in Article 1577, V. C. S.

Sale of county land must be madeat public auction in the modeset 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 theHan- HowardTra*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

OFTEXAS

Jn:w:wb

APPROVED: