HonorableKing Fiks c0uat.v Attorney EU-tluycoumty DAlhart,Teras
Dear Sir: OpinionNo.O-3315 Ret Constructionof Arts. 7328 aJd 7290,V.A.C.S.
We are in receiptof your letterof MProh 19, 1941 in whiah you requestthe opininnof this dsparhnaatasto the proper ooa&uotioa of Articles729% aad 7329 of Veraon'sAanotatedCivil Statutes. Suoh a oonst- ruatioais aeoessaryin order to~dstemiae whether or not the oolleotioaof delinqusatschool distriottaxer is Wrrad after tea years. It also requir- es 8 consideration of whether or noisArtiole 729% is a limittition statuteor is rather oae which forbidsthe.kiaging of any suit for the oolleotionof dsliaqueatsohooldistriattaxes later thaa tea years after the same had be- ooma delinquent. Artiale 72981~8 ,origiaally enactedin 1896 aad rood as followsr
"No delinqueattaxpayershall havs the right to plead in any court or in any manner rely upoa say Statuteof Limitationby way of defeaseagainst the paymentof any taxes due from him or her eitherto the State or amy oounty,city or tom."
Arkiole 7329 was mated in 1923 and reads as followsa
"There shall be ao defenseto a suit for oolleotioaof deliaquemttaxes,a8 providedfor iathis chapter aroept:
"1. That the defendnatwas not the omer of the land at the time the suit-s filed.
'2. That the taxes sued for have beeapaid, or ;3. That the taxes sued for are in exoess of the limit allowed by law, kt.this defenseshall apply only to such exooss. 4&s 2nd C.S. 1923, p. 36." The above quotedArtialasqere ooasideredia referenceto delin- qusat schooldistricttaxes by the Conmissionof Appealsof Te1p8 intie case of HerefordIndependentSohoolDistrictV. Jones, 23 5.X (2d) 690. In that case the defendantowed the independentschooldistrictdelinquent, taxes for the years 1918, 1921 end 1924. The contentionwas made that the Statute HonorableKing Fike, pa@ 2 (C-3316)
of Umitatioa oould not be urged boause of Artiols 7296, aupra. The Court answeredthis as follows,
"It is urged that the provialonsof rrOiols 7298, R.S. 1925, operatedto pre- vent the plea of limitationfrom being availablein a suit for the reoovery ofthetaxes by 8 a&o01 dirhiot. This artioleread6 a8 follows: 'No delin- quest tax payer shall have the right to plead in any oourt,or in any manner rely upoa pargstatuteof limitationti way of defenseagaiartthe paymentof any taxes due from him or her eitherto the State, or any aounty,city or tom.1
"The applicationof the above statuteis sxpre8slylimitedto suits to oolleot taxes due the state, county,city, or tovm, and is not in our opinion,applica- ble to taxes due to sohooldistriats. This being the oaly statutewhich we think can be urged as havingthe effsot of preventiagthe operationof the statuteof limitationas to the taxes due for the years 1918 and 1921,-peare oomplled to hold that the reoovsryof suohtaxes bythe sohooldistriotwas kerrsd$henoe the trial oourtproperly suuetained an exceptionto the petition seekluga recoverytherefor."
Therefore,the co&t held that Article 7298 did not apply to schooldistricttaxes. The oourt held, however,that the taxes for the year 1924 had not been barred baaauseof &tiole 7329, supra,which artiolesat out the only defensethat could be plead in a tax suit and which Artiolethe court held -aasapplicableto schooldistriottax suits.
Also, the SuprelpeCoUrt of Texas in theuxseof Statev. Glenn, 13 6.W. (2d) 337, held