Gerald C. Mann .-?xs-rxx. TEXAS February 

### 6, 1939

Hon. James i:'.

Swarts County Attorney Van Horn, Texas
Dear Sir: OpinionNO. 

### 0-265 Re: Land purchased by State st tax sale
This office is in receipt of your letter of January 30, 

### 1939,wherein you advise that in 

### 1933 the State boll&t certain land

oreclosure for delinquent taxes. Period of redemption an6 the land was not redeemed.
ale of the land by the State is contemplated,and you er the purchaserwill take the land free OX' taxes aco the foreclosure sale, and (2)whether such purchaser land free of taxes assessed since the purchase by the

Artic~ised Civil Statutes, reads:
lots which have been returned rted sold to the State, or to i'ortaxes due thereon sincethe ry, 1885, 

### orwhioh may hereafter

sold to the 11 be subjeot and said taxes

, althoughthe owner be unknown, or be 1isteU in the ner; and though land may be sold WIfor all texes, intern to be due by such asA subsequent 

### suitby the State for the same closure on the same land was allowed by the said statute.

e State sued to foreolose on the land for the years 188l+to 1888, and for 

### 18% The courtheld that the State oould and therebydid waive its rights under the deed for the 188l+taxes, and allowed 

### recovery of the taxes sued for, with interest. It ml&t be mentioned that when the suitwas brou&t the period of redemption from the previous salehad not expired.Ron. James ?i.Swarts,February 6, 1939, Page 2

In State vs. Liles, 212 S.‘!.517, it for prior yearswere disposed of upon sale for was held that taxes taxes for a given two reasons: (1) year, but th;t case is not applicablehere for The land in that case was sold to an individual, snd not to the State so as to f&l within Article 7320; and (2) an amendment to Article 7326, in 1923, formed the basis of the opinion of Judge Nickels ol'the Commission of Appeals in State )Zortgage Gorporation
VS. State, 17 :I'.'./. (2d) 8Oi, to hold contrary to State vs. Liles, and decree that tilthough the land should be sold to an individual on a tax saie, the State could thereaftermaintain foreclosureactions for taxesvohich had accruedprior to the taxes for which the first action 7:asbrourht and the salemade.

Cur answer to your first lluestion is that the purchaser of'this landwill not take title free of taxes accruingprior to 1933. The State,not choosing to waive its deed, as was dona in Teague vs. State, supra, but to stand upon the same, and the State's title theretohaving becomeripe through expiration of the period of redemption, the landswere not assessable for taxes for years subsequent to the purchase by the State. 1674. 61 C.J. 1232, Sec.

In the absence of an express intent to do so, the Statemay not tax its own land. 61 C.J. 366-7; Brinnemanvs. Soholens, 128 S.V. 58l+(Ark.);

Eenger vs. Douglas County, 29 P. 588 (Kan.);Penick vs. Floyd 'WillisCotton Co. titas County, 177 F. 721 (Wash.!. 81 So. 540 (misc.);Ortmanvs. Kit- ??hilethe State has made conatltutionalprovisionsvhereby certain taxes may be leviedn onUniversity land (Art. 7, Sea. 16 (a) 1ana county sohool lands 7Art. '7, Sec. 6 (a) ),no suoh provisionpermits the taxation of the land in questionwhile belonging to the State.

,Answeringyour second question,we beg to advise that a sale underArticle 7328 will convey title free of taxes acoruing since the State'spurchase of the land.

GRL:FG:jrb Yours very truly
ATTORNEY GENERAL Ol? TKKAS By /s/ GlennR. Lewis

Assistant

APPROVED: /s/ Gerald C. Mann ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXfiS