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

February 6, 1939 

Hon. James i:'. Swarts 

County Attorney 

Van Horn, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion NO. 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 purchaser will 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'or taxes due thereon since the 

ry, 1885, or whioh may hereafter 

sold to the 

11 be subjeot 

and said taxes 

, although the 

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 suit by 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 court held that the State oould and thereby did 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 suit was brou&t the period of redemption from the previous sale had not expired. 
Ron. James ?i. Swarts, February 6, 1939, Page 2 

In State vs. Liles, 212 S.‘!. 517, it 

for prior years were disposed of upon sale for 

was held that taxes 

taxes for a given 

year, but th;t case is not applicable here for two reasons: (1) 

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 thereafter maintain foreclosure actions for taxes vohich had accrued prior to the taxes for which the 

first action 7:as brourht and the sale made. 

Cur answer to your first lluestion is that the purchaser 

of' this land will not take title free of taxes accruing prior 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 thereto having become ripe through expiration of the 

period of redemption, the lands were 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 State may 

not tax its own land. 61 C.J. 366-7; Brinneman vs. Soholens, 128 

S.V. 58l+(Ark.); Eenger vs. Douglas County, 29 P. 588 (Kan.); Penick vs. Floyd 'Willis Cotton Co. 

titas County, 177 F. 721 (Wash.!. 

81 So. 540 (misc.); Ortman vs. Kit- 

??hile the State has made conatltutional provisions vhereby certain taxes may be levied n on University land (Art. 7, Sea. 16 (a) 1 ana county sohool lands 7 Art. '7, 

Sec. 6 (a) ), no suoh provision permits the taxation of the land in 

question while belonging to the State. 

,Answering your second question, we beg to advise that a 

sale under Article 7328 will convey title free of taxes acoruing 

since the State's purchase of the land. 

GRL:FG:jrb 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL Ol? TKKAS 

By /s/ Glenn R. Lewis 

Assistant 

APPROVED: 

/s/ Gerald C. Mann 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXfiS