**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

HonorsblaBsecom 011~s Commissionerof the General Ls~d Office Austin,Texas Dear Slrr opiAloAHo. o-7135

Re: Should the Land CoPlirsloner

The questionyou determliitlon

is as foU.g~sr should the Ls

cuted after

s question are briefly lme prior to f921 **vaa** land in Culberson County, ferrad payment plan. Delinrem taxes accrued **against this**  ram 1921 to 1933, and OA Agrll 8, s foreclosedby a tax **judgment** adra J. Bell, deceased,and~hls

State on June 16,

1936, and the sheriff executeda deed to the 1936. On March 19, 1939, the LsAd Commissioner forfeitedthe land for non-paymentof interestunder the provisions of Article 5326, R. C. S., 1925. Subaequentlg, the sheriffof CulberaoA,CouAty, after the **forfeiture,** advertised snd sold the land to a third party vhose name has **AOt** been **given.**

The pertinentportion of Article 5326, RevisedRon. Bsscom Olles - Page 2

Civil Statutes of Texaa, 1925, as of the date vhen the facts arose, reeds as follovs~

"If sAy portion of the interest on aAy sale shouldnot be paid vhen due, the land shall be subject to **forfeiture** by the Commissionerentering on the wrapper containingthe papers 'Land Forfeited',or words of simller import,vlth the date of such action and sign it offlclally, and thereuponthe land and all payments shall be forfeited to the State, &Ad the laads shall be offered for sale on a subsequentsale date. IA aAy case vhere lands have been forfeitedto the State for non-payment0:.

interest, the purchasers.or their wr;;;,r~;~ve their alalms reinstatedon their

by paying into the Treasury the full amount of interestdue on such claim **up** to the date of reinstatement,

provided that no rights oi third pcirsons may have intervened.

. . .’

We shall rlrst aonsider the effect of the aherlff's tax deed executedon **June** 10, 1936 to the State of Texas. Actually, the sheriff could conveyA0 more Interest than the heirs had on that date. The heirs did not possess the legal title. The legal title remained in the State ao long as the purchaseprice remained tm id. r 2 Tax. Jur. 32; Thompsonv. Cutton, 96 Tex. 205, 71 S.W. 54 f ffulf,

**West** Texas lk

Pacific R. C. v. Cornell, 84 Tex. 541, 19 S.W. 703; Parker v. Brown, 80 Tex. 555, 16 S.W. 262; Austin v. Bu~gan, 46 Tex. 236; Ximbro v. Rsmllton, 28 Tex. 560; Lambert v. Weir, 27 Tex. 362; Smlth'e Mmlnistratora v. Oar%a, 15 Trx. 150; Wi field v. Smith, (Clv.App.) 241 9. W. 531; Spearman v. Wms, T civ. App.) 207 S. W. 572; Petersonv. Rector, (Clv.App.) 127 S.W. 561; Levlest v. Wright, 86 S.W. 10391 Campbell v. RcPsddeA, 31 S.W. 436.

The Supreme Court of Texas iA State v. Eke, 206 S. W. 342, held in a case involving school land that "the title remsins in the State, and the purchaserhas only the right to acquire it by continuedoompllsnce vith the conditionsprescribedby the statute."

Prom the foregoingauthorities ve concludethat the sheriff'sdeed dated June 10, 1936, did not disturb the legal title to the land. It **merely** divested the heirs of IM J. Bell of whatever equities or rights they had.8.

BOA. Bescolp

@lea - Page 3

Section 10, Article 5421~~3,Vernon'sAnnotated Civil Statutes of Texas, vestis exclusiveauthorityin the U Commissionerto issue wards on sahool land after the School Lsnd Board has accepted the best bids submitted;therefore,the sheriff of CulbereonCounty has no pover'oreuthopitywhatsoever to divest the Skate's title to public school land. The lend vas forfeitedon March 19, 1939, under the provisionsof Article 5326, supra, and OA that date full and complete tFtle became vested in the state of Tcxes.

We hold that the second sheriff'sdeed executed to a third person sometimeafter March 19, 1939, is vholly void and of no force or effect. The grantee (thirdperson vhose name has not been furnished) under this latter deed acquiredno Interestwhatever in the land. For the foregoingreasons alone ve conclude that the Land Commlsslonerla vlthout authority to accept en applicationfor reinstaterrant under the clrcum.etencea.
A second reasonvhy the Land Commissionerehould not recognina the applicationfor reinstatement 1st the grantew under the sheriff'stax deed doee not come Vlthin the class of 'purchasers

or their vendees* as contemplated by the provisions of Article 5326, oupra. The originalpurchaaprvaa Ina J. Bell. Under the particularfacts, the grantee could not be a vendee of the purchaser. Thus, it Is the opinion of this department :that your question should be aneuered in the'negative. Yours very truly

Assistant JRBT



### APPROVED **OPINION** 

# 0

**(cOYMllT#~** 

### IIY0 ”11 ”“

.”