Honorahle Jerry Sadler Opinion No. ~~-1108 

Commissioner 

General Land Office Re: Authority of Comptroller 

Austin, Texas to issue a warrant reimbursing the party actually 

paying taxes ordered refunded by the Legislative 

Claims Bill, in lieu of 

making such reimbursement 

to the veteran named in 

Dear Mr. Sadler: the Act. 

Our opinion is requested on the following question: 

May the Comptroller of Public 

Accounts issue a Treasury Warrant 

payable to the assignee of a claimant 

named in Section lA, House Bill 22, 

56th Texas Legislature, Third Special 

Session, Chapter 18, when the assignee 

has paid the taxes contemplated by the 

bill? 

The 7eterans' Land Board had for some time followed 

the legal construction that when a veteran's land purchase 

contract was forfeited for non-payment, and the State was 

reinvested with full title to the land, tax liens on the 

trac.t ceased to exist and were merged into the State title. 

In June, 1957, said board adver,-, .&3ned a forfeited tract for 

sale, the notice statfng tha.t the trast would be sold free 

of taxes. Nehemias Alvarado was the purchaser at such sale. 

Subsequently, the Texas Supreme Court held that tax liens 

would not merge but continued to run with the land after resale. The State, therefore, was in the position of having 

sold land under an unintentional misrepresentation, inasmuch 

as there were delinquent taxes aga‘lnst such land at the time 

of such forfeiture. 

The Legislative Claims Bill (Acts of 1959, 3rd 

C.S., Ch. 18, p. 404) moved to correc:t .this situation. Section 1A thereof appropriated "an amount not to exceed the 
Honorable Jerry Sadler, page 2 (~~-1108) 

amounts set forth opposite the names of the following military veterans respectively, to-wit: . . . Nehemias Alvarado 

. . . 372.28 . . ." 

In October, 1960, with Eoard approval, veteran 

Alvarado assigned his purchase contract to A. J. Morrow, a 

non-veteran, who, as part of the transaction, paid the 

taxes in question, and whona/j seeks reimbursement therefor 

under the Claims Bill. 

The answer to your question requires a careful 

analysis of the Act. Section 1 appropriates funds to pay 

claims of numerous types. The appropriation in Section 1A 

is limited to tax refunds to veterans under the circumstances 

aforesaid. In addition to naming the veterans and giving the 

amounts to be paid them, Section 1A also provides: 

!'Said payments shall be received 

in full satisfaction of all claims and 

demands of said named veterans, respectively, against the State of Texas arising out of the resale by the Veterans' 

Land Board . . . and the purchase . . . 

by said named veterans. . . . Said payments shall be made as and when the 

chairman of the Veterans' Land Board 

certifies to the Comptroller: a the 

name of the veteran; . . . and t e 1 

whether in fact said amounts have been 

pafd by the veteran or are still owing 

and unpaid to the agency or official 

charged by law with the collection thereOf. If said amounts have been paid by the 

veteran, the Comptroller shall issue the 

State's warrant in the name of the veteran 

making such payment and deliver such warrant 

to the Veterans' Land Yoard for transmittal 

to the veteran; if, however, said amounts 

are still due and owing to the agency or 

official charged with the collection thereof, 

the State's warrant shall be issued in the 

name of such agency or official. . . .'I 

Section 3 of the Act directs the Comptroller "to 

issue a warrant or warrants on the State Treasurer in favor 

of eazh of the persons, firms or corporations named herein 

. . . 
Honorable Jerry Sadler, page 3 (~~-1108) 

It will be noted that the statute authorizes payment only to the veteran mentioned in the statute, or to 

the taxing agency where taxes are still unpaid. (Subsequent 

to enactment of the Claims Bill, part of the taxes on the 

land in question were paid by the State to the taxing authority.) In view of the specific directions in the statute, we 

are constrained to answer your question in the negative. To 

hold that a warrant might issue payable to a person other 

than the named veteran or the tax authority would be to hold 

that the Comptroller could act contrary to the statutory 

directions. 

The warrant may only be issued in the name of Mr. 

Al.varado and delivered to the Veterans' Land Board. As a 

ma:.ter of mechanics, the problem might be solved if Mr. 

Alvarado were to endorse the warrant over to Mr. Morrow 

while the Board, through an agent, is still in possession 

of the same. The Board could then deliver the warrant to 

the endorsee, Mr. Morrow. Further, we enclose herewith a 

copy of Attorney General's Opinion No. 0-1062 which suggests 

an additional solution to the problem. If an assignment and 

power of attorney, executed by Mr. Alvarado, somewhat similar 

to the one set out on page 4 of said opinion, is filed with 

the Veterans' Land Board, such Board would then be empowered 

to deliver the warrant to Mr. Morrow, who could endorse thereon 

the name of the payee and cash same. If the matter cannot be 

worked out under one of the above arrangements, a new appropriation will have to be secured in Mr. Morrow's name. 

SUMMARY 

Since the Legislative Claims Biil 

orders payment of a tax refund to a 

named veteran, the Comptroller ?s rgithout authority to issue a warrant under 

such appropriation to another person who 

purchased said veteran's tract and who 

actually paid the taxes in question. 

Yours very truly, 

!~LI,L WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 
. .- 

Honorable Jerry Sadler, page 4 (~~-1.108) 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE: 

W. V. Geppert, chairman 

Thomas Burrus 

John Reeves 

Grundy Williams 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: Houghton Brownlee, Jr.