OFFICE OF TREATTORNEYGbjSJERALOl" TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable B. F. MolSee 

County Auditor 

Rldalgo County 

Edinburg, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion No. C-1170 

Rer Land aold by the State to 

an individual, and later 

forfeited and ~epoeeeeeed 

by the State is not sub- 

$i9yt t0.a lien r0r tare8 

that aoorued.while it was 

privately owned. 

This‘ia in reply to your letter, whzloh is as followa: 

“The state sold a eeotion or land 

about thirty years ago whiehwas never 

paid out by the purohasert The etate 

hae now advised the present owner o$ 

the equity that they ea$eot to oa 

the sale for non-payment. county%: 

state tares have acoumulated again3t 

this property since 1919. Please advi44 the etatue of our taxee.again?t 

thla piece of property when the state 

reoover~ this land." 

We aaeume that this land was public free school 

land, and was sold to an Individual by the State under.the 

term of Chapter 3, Title'06 (Articles 5300 to WisO); and 

that it will be forfeited and repoaseeaed by the State under 

Artials 5320 of that Chapter. 

Such land was not subject to taxation;while owned 

by the State prior' to the aale to the individual, by virtue 

of Article VIII;Seotion 2 of the Constitutioh of Texas, 

and Article 7150, Subdivls~on 4, ,of the Revised Civil Statutea. 
Honorable B. F. McKee, Page 2 

There can be 

to taxation during the 

Ual* 

no doubt that the land was subjeot 

period it was owned by the individWhen the land is forfeited and repossessed by 

the State, title vests in the State ahd it again has the 

statue it had bbrore it ~waa sold. Lawless vs. wright 

(Clv. App.) 86 5. W. 1040; Houston 011 Company vs. ReeseCorriher Lumber Compahy (Civ. App.) l81 S. W. 745. 

Aa we understand It, you deeire to know the 

statue of the delinquent taxee due the ooimty when the 

State reposstieses the land. We think that question ie answered.by’the rule of law in the case of State VS. Stovall 

(Clv. App.), 76 8. W. (2d) 206 (writ refused) in whioh it 

wae held that land that had reverted to the State wan not 

.subject to seizure and sale to satisfy delinquent aohool 

taxes owed on it by the individual from whom the State had 

obtained it, and the Court, in that case, said: 

“et contends in this oonneotion tuna% ~‘though real property may 

be ~charged 4th a lien for unpaid tares 

duly and legally levied by the state or 

by a county, munfofpality, or sohool 

district, when thereafter the legal 

title to such property is aoquired by 

or veste in ‘the state, and the sdme is 

used by it ‘r0r.a publio purpoim, all : 

nt proc8edihga to oolleot euoh 

hforclng such lien are without 

0ff0Gt Andy void. The iseue of law preeented by appellant*8 contention ie apparently one of firat impression in this 

state, but it is supported by the great 

weight of authority in other jwiBdiGtions e Foster v. City of Duluth, 120 

Minn. 484, 140 N. W. 129, 131, par* 2, 48 

I,. R. A. (N. S.) 707; .Stat4 V4e bGk4, 29 N. 

IL 148, 219 P. 790, 792, pai. 1, 30 A. Li 

R, 407, and note page 413; Reid v. State, 

74 Ind. 252; State v. Maricopa County, 

36 Ariz. 347, 300 P. 175; Lauren 

100 Miea. 335, 56 So. 431, 452,;~.; 

..V.. We-, 

b , Ann+ 

Gas, 1914A, 169;.State v. Snohozlsh County, 71 Wash. 320, 128 P.:667, 670; par; 

2; Smith vi Santa Monica, 162 Cal. 221, 

121 P. 920, 921; Oachet v. City oi New 

.Orleans, 52 La. Ann. 813, 27 BOO 348; 
Honorable B. F. McKee, PagO 3 

Gasaway v. City of Seattle, 52 Viaash. 444, 

100 P. 991, 993 (bottom seoond oolwnh), 

21 L. R. A. (N. Y.) 62; Independent Sohool 

Diet. v. Hewitt 106 Iowa 663, 75 #. ‘U. 

497, 498, par, 6; 26 R. C. L., pe 299, 

Sea. eaS, and note ~2; 61 C. J., pa 945, 

sec. 1215. Since tha judgment reoovered 

by the appelles Ruek lndspendent eohoolaistriot is for the colleatlon of: taxes, 

and the title to the property again& 

which it8 judgment Of foreclosure was 

rendered hae paseed to and vested in 

the Stats of Texae, ,and the. 8ame is now 

being used by It for pub110 purpoeee, 

euoh property le not now subject to 

seizure and aale to satisfy such. judgmentew 

The holding in the Stovall.oass maa expressly approved by the Supreme Court. of Texas, ap.a@5ng: through Justice Sharp, in the oaee.of’Ch$ldrelre County’vs. Stats, 

127 Tax. 343.; 92 S. 8. (2d) .lOll; 

Prior to the decisions in the Stovall oasa and 

the Childrees County~oase, this department made a similar 

ruling in Opinion No. 2SO0, dated January 25, .1930, written 

by Aseistant Attorney General H. Grady Chandler, during tha 

admlnletration of Attorney General Bobbltt, in which lt’was 

aa8 

“We .have been unable to find any 

Texas authorities on the question rubmitted by you, Therefore, it become8 

necessary to resort to ~the deoleioilrr 

of other juriadiotlons. . . 

“We believe o . l that under the 

great weight of authority In thle oountry, your. question should be answered 

by saying that when the Houston Independent School District acquired rsal 

est&e to be used for public. @chool 

purpoRes, the mama thereby be&ame fro4 

.of any tax lien that might have prariously existed againet the sama, end it 

is no longer .eubject to taxation** 

It is our @e&ion that the same rule applies te 

the question before ue 
Honorable B. I?. McKee, Page 4 

We want it clearly understood that w4 have ouly 

considerad this question from the standpoint or the status of the taxes when theland is forfeited and repossessed by the State; and we .are not 4xpr48Sing an opinion as 

to the status of these taxes whsn the State re-sells this 

land, or the purchaser rrctn whom it was forfeited re-purchases or redeems the land. 

Our answer to your question Is that when this 

land i8 rors4it4a ana r4poae4ee4d by the State, it is not 

subject to a lien for asy taxes that aooruad agaisst it 

during the time it was privately owsad by an lnaivldual. 

Yours very truly 

Al'TORNEyGRN%ALOFTRU' 

w l&mm 

~(8) Ceoil 0. Rotrch 

AfJsistant 

APPRCVND BY OPINION COMKI= 

BY (S) R. W. Fi, CRAIRUUT