TEZEATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

PRICE DANIEL 

AUEITIN 1s. TEXAS 

PJTORNEY GENERAL 

AuLust 9, 1949 

Han. c. H. cPvnes8 

State Auditor 

Austin, Texas 

Opinion v-878 

Re: Present ownership and 

custody of 6.46 acrea 

of lands, Travis County, 

Texas. 

Dear sir: 

The question raised by you Is stated In your 

letter as follows: 

“We respectfully request your opinion 

as to the present status of a six and fortysix one hundredths (6.46) acre tract of land 

deeded ,to the State of Texas by one Joeeph 

A. Megle on December llth, 1883. 

“During the course of our current audit 

of the accounts of the (fame, Fish end Oyster 

Co~lss1on, we learned of a deed recorded in 

the County Clerk’s offloe- of Travis County, 

Texas, Vol. 58, page 276, oonveylng the above 

mentioned tract of lead for the consideration 

or Nine Hundred end Sixty-nine ($969.00) 

dollrra. 

“In our attempt to eroerteln the rlghtfail ourtodlen or this land, we reed the epproprlatlon bill ror the year ended February 

2gth, 1884 (II asred by the 18th Imgi8l&ture, 

Regular Searion 7 and round for the drprrtrent or Fiuh Conl~~~lonec en appropriation 

ror One Thourmd ()l,OOOiOO) Dollars which 

reed ~Conat~otiea of eddltlonel Fish Ponds 

and puroheae or ,lmd, to be approved by the 

Oovernor .I .A.sswl 

Y 

that the lend waft bought 

ror the tme or the lsh Commissioner we reed 

hla report for the year8 1883 end 1864, end 

found mention of the purchase of the land In 

question, to be used by the Fish Commlsrloner 

a6 ‘Carp Ponds, t 
Hon. C. H. Cavness - Page 2 -V-878 

“The office of the Fish Commissioner 

was abolished by the 19th Legislature and 

its property transferred to the Superintendent of Public Buildln s 

(Gamel’s, Vol. 9, page 65 & ). 

and Grounds. 

We found In 

the report of the Superintendent of Public Buildin s 

1885 and 18 8 6 

and Grounds for the years 

that he had taken charge of 

the 6.46 acre tract In question and had 

offered It for sale or lease as authorized 

by the 19th Legislature, but apparently 

It was not sold - In the 1888 report from 

the same officer we again found the land 

mentioned as property of the State of 

Texas, Since that report, however, we 

have been unable to find any further mention of It. 

“Does the State still own this land 

and, If so, In whose custody does it belong?” 

We have read the above referred to deed es the 

same appears of record in Volume 58, page 276 of the Deed 

Records of Travis County and find that it is the ordinary 

form of general warranty deed, containing no words of limltation, condition or reservation which mighti cause a reversion of the title. The deed does, however, contain a 

statement that the 6.46 acre tract is to Include the 

“State Fish Ponds, ” thus indicating the existence of State 

ponds on the tract prior to the date of the conveyance. 

We are advised by a local abstracter that there 

is no evidence in the records of Travis County that the 

State has ever conveyed or otherwise disposed of the traot 

in question. Although we have not been furnished with abatrects and therefore have not examined the title and do 

not pass on its validity into Nagle, nevertheless, it 

would appear from the investigation made by us and by your 

office that whatever title was conveyed by Nagle to the 

State has not been conveyed or otherwise disposed of by 

the State of Texas. 

The State’s title is not affected by the lapse 

of time, lathes, adverse possessldn or the dereliction 

or failure to act of its officers. Humble 011 & Reflglng 

Company v. State, 162 S.W.2d 119, 134 (Tex. Clv. App. 1942, 

error ref.). 
Hon. C. H. Cavness - Page 3 -v-878 

Based upon the foregoing, it would appear that 

whatever title the State got to the 6.46 acre tract is 

still vested In the State of Texas. 

Subject to constitutional limitations, the 

power of the State with respect to Its lands and the 

property rights therein is vested in the Legislature 

and the Legislature alone can exercise the power necessary to the enjoyment and protection of such rights 

by enactment of statutes for that purpose. 

Daughters of the Republic, 106 Tex. 80, 156 %+%-%7 

157 S.W. 937 (1913). Although apparently purihased in’ 

1883 for an already exfstfng fish pond or hatchery, the 

land in question has at all times since and Is now subject to such use and disposition as the Legislature 

may determfne 0 

In abolishing the offfce of Ffsh Commfssfoner, 

the 19th Legfslature, lr.s.1885, ch. 36, provided: 

“Be ft er,acted by the Legislature of 

the State of Texas: That the office of Fish 

Commfssiorzer shall be and the same is hereby 

abolished; and the fish ponds now belonging 

to the State of Texas, together with all other 

property connected with said department, shall 

be taken charge of by the Superintendent of 

Public Buildings and Grounds, and shall be 

sold OP’ leased by dfrectfon of the Governor 

at his discretion, at such time and In such 

manner as! may be considered mast advantageous 

to the State, and the proceeds arfsfng from 

aaid sale to be paid +nto the Treasury as a 

part 0r the general revenue, I9 

It is OUP opinion that; this Act conferred upon 

the Superintendent of Publfo BuUdings and Grounds not only 

the duty of selling or leasing the property but, in addition, 

the general custody of all fish ponds and other properties 

belongfng to the State at that time under the supervision 

of the Fish Commlssfoner. The tPact in question clearly 

was Included within the propertles,9 the custody of which 

was transferred by said Act. 

@he office of Superintendent of Public Bulldfngs and Grounds was created in 1874 (Acts 14th Leg., 

Ch. 98, ~~165) and continued to exist until January 1, 

1920, when ft was abolished end the authority of the Super- 
Han, C, H, Cavness - Page 4 - V-878 

fntendent conferred upon him by the provfsions of 

Chapter 1, Title 113, A.C,S. of 1911, was traneftrred to the Stat,& Board of Control, which came Into 

existence on that day, (Acts 1919, 36th Leg. R.S,, 

~h.167, Set, 7, ~~323; Acts 1919, 36th Leg,lst C.S., 

Ch. '+> pm 7). 

We conclude therefore that the title to the 

land in question is in the State of Texas, that custody, 

fn the sense of ultimate control and disposition, is 

in the Legis;ature, and that custody, in the sense of 

protective aupervisfon and control and present management, is in the BoaPd of Control. 

SUMMaRY 

T:he ,tft,.le to certafn land in Travis 

County, acquired by the State for the office of Fish Commfssfoner in 1883, which 

office was abolished and the properties 

thereof t,ransferred to the charge of the 

Office of State Superintendent of Public 

Buildinns and Grounds in 1885, absent a 

conveyance by the State, and none is of 

recorl in Travfs County, title is still In 

the State0 Custody of the land as regards 

ui%imste control and dfsposPtion fs in the 

Legislature, Custody as regards present 

management and ~'~pervfsfon is in the Board 

of Control, ~uc3essor to the Office of 

State Superfntendent of Public Buildings 

anJ Groun,3s o 

Yours very t.ruly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS