that the two year Statuteof Limitationappliedto delin- quent tax suits broughtby oertaindypes of dietriotsto which Artiole 7239 did not apply. Therefore,in 1929 the Legislatureby Senate Bill 169 amended Artiole 7298 and the same regd as follous:
"Section1. That Artiole 7298, RevisedCivil Statutesof 1925 be, and the sam is, hereby-amended toread as follows:
"That no delinquenttax payer hhall hava the right to plead in any aourt or in any manner rely upon any statuteof limitationby way of defenseagainst the paymentof taxes due from him or her to the State, or any county, city, torn, navigatfon~district, drainagedistrict,road distriot,levee district, reclamationdistriot,irrigationd&&riot, improvementdistrict,school dis- triot, aad all other districts. Providedthat ao suit shall b, broughtfor the oollectioaof delinquenttaxes of a school distriotor road distriot unless institutedwithin six years from the time the same shallbeooma delin- quent* "Sm. 2. Whereas,there is now no law in this Stats to preventdelinquent tax payersfrom settingup this statuteof limitationas a defenseagainst the paymentof taxes due fran him or her whether to the State,or any county, city, town or district,and the furtherfact that the SupremeCourt, in&e case of State for Dallas County Bois D*Aro IslandLevee Districtvs. Glenn, 13 S-W., Second Edition,page 337, has-heldthat the two year st8tutaof HonorableRiag Fike, page 3 (C-3315)
limitationappliesto deliaqueattaxes duo i-0distriots,thus prsventing hundredsof districtsia this State frcm the oolleotioaof delinquent taxes, and to avoid the filing of R multiplioityof suits by the authorities againstdelinquenttax payers in order to preveattha km of limitatioabe- ing set up againstthem, andthe furtherfact that hundredsof distriots throughtTexas are affeotedtherebyand will loss large amountsof delinquent taxes,thereforean smergeaayexists and aa imperativepublicneoessityre- quiring . . . " eta.
In 1931 the legislatureamendedthe above quoted artioleand sub stitutedthe words "ten years" in place of the words "six years" ia the Act quoted.
By way of summary,therefore,it is apparentthat Article7296 as the sam now reads and the provisocontainedtherein~9th refereaoeto school districttaxes is the more reoent enactmentPS well a8 the oae ooveriagthe speoifiasubjectunder disoussion,snd if the scum is ia anymy in confliot with Artiole 7329,Article 7298 in our opinionis oontrolling,and we believe that if suit islroughtfor the colleotionof delinquentschooldistiiottaxes, a taxpayermay plead 88 a defensethe limitationsRS set out in Article 7298, supra.
The questionis also raised as to whether or not the proviso con- tained in Article 7298 "that ao suit shallbe broughtfor the colleotioaof de- linquenttaxes of a sohooldistriotor road distriotunless institutedwithin ten years fromthe time the smse shall becamedelinquent,"is a statutswhich prohibitsthe institution06 a suit for the oolleotioaof.deliaquentsohool districttaxes more thantsn years old, whiah would in fact operateRS a releaseor remissionof all such taxes, or whether the same is in fact P statuteof limitatian which must be pleadedin order to bs a bar or a defsnsa to a racoveryof the 681~4. It is our opinionthat the above quoted proviso is merely a statuteof limitation. In the first plaoe,the provisi is an exceptionto tbelsstoftie statuteshioh providesthat no delinquenttaxpayer &hall have the right to plead or rely oa any statute of limitation. Ws also call your attentiontotbhe captionof the Act snaotedin 1929 pmioh reads in part