OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorsbla Bsecom 011~s 

Commissioner of the General Ls~d Office 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Slrr opiAloA Ho. o-7135 

Re: Should the Land CoPlirsloner 

The question you 

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 foreclosed by a tax judgment adra J. Bell, deceased, and~hls 

State on June 16, 

1936, and the sheriff executed a deed to the 

1936. On March 19, 1939, the LsAd Commissioner 

forfeited the land for non-payment of interest under the provisions of Article 5326, R. C. S., 1925. Subaequentlg, the 

sheriff of CulberaoA,CouAty, after the forfeiture, advertised 

snd sold the land to a third party vhose name has AOt been given. 

The pertinent portion of Article 5326, Revised 
Ron. 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 should not be paid vhen due, the land shall 

be subject to forfeiture by the Commissioner entering on the wrapper containing the papers 'Land 

Forfeited', or words of simller import, vlth the 

date of such action and sign it offlclally, and 

thereupon the land and all payments shall be forfeited to the State, &Ad the laads shall be offered 

for sale on a subsequent sale date. IA aAy case 

vhere lands have been forfeited to the State for 

non-payment 0:. interest, the purchasers. or their 

wr;;;,r~;~ve their alalms reinstated on their 

by paying into the Treasury the 

full amount of interest due 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 executed on June 10, 1936 to the State of Texas. Actually, 

the sheriff could convey A0 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 purchase price remained 

tm id. 

r 

2 Tax. Jur. 32; Thompson v. 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; Peterson v. 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 purchaser has only the right to 

acquire it by continued oompllsnce vith the conditions prescribed by the statute." 

Prom the foregoing authorities ve conclude that 

the sheriff's deed 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's Annotated 

Civil Statutes of Texas, vestis exclusive authority in the U 

Commissioner to issue wards on sahool land after the School 

Lsnd Board has accepted the best bids submitted; therefore, the 

sheriff of Culbereon County has no pover'or euthopity whatsoever 

to divest the Skate's title to public school land. The lend vas 

forfeited on March 19, 1939, under the provisions of Article 

5326, supra, and OA that date full and complete tFtle became 

vested in the state of Tcxes. 

We hold that the second sheriff's deed executed 

to a third person sometime after March 19, 1939, is vholly void 

and of no force or effect. The grantee (third person vhose 

name has not been furnished) under this latter deed acquired no 

Interest whatever in the land. For the foregoing reasons alone 

ve conclude that the Land Commlssloner la vlthout authority to 

accept en application for reinstaterrant under the clrcum.etencea. 

A second reason vhy the Land Commissioner ehould 

not recognina the application for reinstatement 1st the grantew 

under the sheriff's tax deed doee not come Vlthin the class of 

'purchasers or their vendees* as contemplated by the provisions 

of Article 5326, oupra. The original purchaapr vaa Ina J. Bell. 

Under the particular facts, 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#~ 

IIY 0”11”“.”