OFFICE OF THE A’lTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Bonoxablr Charlay ~oomrt 

State Traasurar 

Amtin, Taxar 

Dear Slrt 

In your lattar 

r~qurrt 0112 oplnlon ln 

ALL mm BY z%a?sE 

EMTS: 

II, or th0 00unCy 

xaa* ror all6 in 

\uytm$)f $500 00 l;awh rsoalp_t 

r hlo Is ereby o~knaWedge4'arnd eon 

the further aousldsrstlon that 

th & '*(I taroim taka8diid property 

sabjact/to, but in 1i0 tiisr asn&~i& that 

oerbaln lndsbtsdnww due thorron to ROY 

Rutlend, Jr., of *XoLannea County, Texak, 

th6 bal.anos POW due 011 46i.6 indabtednass 

b.eing the earn or &$ooo.oo -------------. 
Honorabls Charlry Lockhart, page 2 

2. Would state note etalaps be raqulred on a dard where the grantee aaeumed 

pra-existing lnUabtednaaa, whloh lndabtad- 

~86 wee eaourad by a prior lien wNoh had 

been stamped when it wee riled ror raoord? 

3. Would a chattel morteaga be aubjeot 

to stat* nota ataz~pa wh%oh 15 glr*n on psrso-1 property as rurthar aaourlty ror the 

aarga lmdabtodneaa, between the aama partlea 

thvt Is aaouroa by a randox*a ,llan-and deed 

or trust lien on real e~atet4’;‘on whloh state 

note stamps had bwn paid. In other words, 

the obligation la the aaieo between the aean 

pertioa but the property eoverad by the ohattel nortgsgr la not the aamo,p~oprrty oovera6 by the vandor’a lien and/or deed of 

trust lien; 

kc. The deed to real 56tet0, looat*d 

orlglnelly In cX* County, was duly raoordad 

in “X” County in the yaar.1927. Later the 

county boundary llnae ware,’ changed, oetulng 

the property to ba Sn ‘P' Cogaty. wou&a 

the raoordl of the deed with rendb@Ta 

lien in WY 2 cnmty be ~~aubja8t to balag, 

rta=paQ tmd~r Artlola 7017a3 

Art&l8 7017r, Vernon's Retleod Clvll: Statutes, 

resde in part 88 follmwa: 

“(a) Zxcapt es herein otherwise provlded there is hereby lavle4 and eaaaaaad 

(I tax or Ten (lO$) Cants on l eeh One Hundred 

($100.00) Dollera or traction thereor, over 

the rlrst Two Hundred ($2fM..OO) Dollars, oa 

all notae and obligetlona 684urad by ahattrl 

mortgage, deed or trmt, p(lohanSo*a lien 

oontrgot, vendor16 lien, Uom3Itlo~l ealae 

aontraot and 611 lnatrm~ta of a alailar 

nature wNab are Silad or raecwded lh the 

orfloe ot the County Clerk uader the Ragiatretlon Laws or this Stetei provide4 that 

no tax shall be levied on inatrtinta, 

aeonring an umoaat or mo Eundrod ($ioO.oO) 

D~llara, or lass. After the 6fr40tir4 data 

I’onorabla Chnrley Lockhart, pay-:8 4 

Clearly the tax is not au+3 upon the InstrUment 

,~en~ionaa In your first question. Such inetrurnent la 

zeroly one of conveyance and is not one creative of 

eecurity for tho imlebtedness OS $4000 nentioned therein. 

V:e also wmw! your sscond and third que~stiona 

in the neC:ntlva. In our oonrai-enca opinion x0. 3051 aaCrensUl t0 YOU, wf3 axpress6d the view that the tax levied 

by thin StStUtS is Upon the J?riVilc?~e of’ US?..?~ the office 

of the county clerk, for tha recording of certain instru- 

-xats. hoc’ever, >?e beli?:ve that a readin&: of the statute 

e~ Q vbole iii~cloaes an intent on the part of the Legfalature n@t to ps-wit Q pgranidins of’ this tax. The firat 

FentGnCa in the 0Ot \-c~ld indicate that the t0.x should be 

collected only once w!ith referance to any particular 

indebtedness. Further in the statute we find renewals 

sr!d refundinfis of the original ~rincipsll indebtedness 

:~rotcctecS fron havim; euch auboequent lnstrmonta t.o be 

rt!;v;~xd, where the tm. ~?as paid on the oriE,ffiel instruannat of security. Lt lo also provided that ljfhare several 

instrcmnts are conteaporenscualy cxecutec? to recuze one 

obllrction, the tax ohs11 apply to only one instrument. 

I’l!rthar?1Qs6) sn instrument once atmIed .my bs rooordcd 

lu other counties in, the Ct%te wit.hout ar.cin being sub- 

,fCCt6t?. to the t-Z. Fe dn not mgard OUT nmncr to your 

second Question as 

c-l j2E 

being in confiict with otm oplnicn 

!:a. rjddsusca d to Iionornble E. 2. %3otcl;riFnc;;, 

County ;.ttoim3g, Eaaunont, Taxm. In that opinfon w3 

Ccld t!mt a dcsd :vould he required to bee: the stamps 

rhera the nurch.aser was tlereio rsqtiired to assum a 

pm-mist& indebtedness, but the prior deed fn which 

the vendor’s lien was ori::inally craated bad been rem-de& dthout ppmt of tile ty.