Corn.App. 270 S-W. 1005. %norable King Nke, page 5 (O-3315)
"It is not the rule in msny other jurisdiotions.Sharrowv. InlandLines, 108 N. E. 217, 214 N. Y. 101, t. R-A. 1914E, 1192, note Ilnn.Gas. 1918D, p. 1236.
"Ia the cases cited above,the statutescreatinga cause of action for injuri- es resultingin death, and limitingthe time withinwhich to sue, was held to be a statuteof limitation,althoughthe oauseofaotionwas oreatedby the Legislatureand did not exist at commonlaw. In the other oasesreferredto the SupremeCourt held that the statutepresoribiagthe timewlthi~whiohto oreaent alajmssgainst the guarantyfund was a statuteof limitatlon,andmust be pleaded,although,of course,such a rightwas unheardof at e-on law.
asubjectto the limitationset forth in Erp v . Tillmm, 131 S.W. 1057, 103 Tar. 575, all statutesprescribinga time in which suit may be lmuughthave, so far as our investigationdiscloses,been treatedin this state as statutesof lM- tation.' (lkdersooringours)
It is our opinionthat the statuteunder oonsiderationlhich provides that no suit shall be bought after ten years is in the smae categoryas the statutesdiscussedin the above quotedoases whereia it is providedthat suits nay be bought within a certainperiod of tim and not thereafter. Such statutes have alwaysbeen construedin this State to be statutesof limitationwhioh must be specificallypleadedas a defense. In line with the abow reasoaing,this departi&. ruled in OpinionNo. G-103 as follows:
"It is our opinion that this provisionin Article 7298 is a ten year statute of limitationon oollectionof delinquewttaxes due a schooldistrictor a road distrlet. In order totakeadvantageof the limitationperiodthe tax payer would have to speciallyplead and se% up his rights under this tea year statute. In the absenceof such spoial pleadings,by the tax payer, the attorneylwinging the tax suit could take judgmentfor the sohoolaad road tax, delinquentten years prior to the date the suit was filed,even thoughthe other taxes had been paid."
We subsequentlyruled in OpinionNo. G-1458 that a tax oolleotorwho collectedmneytir sehool distriottax08 whioh were more thanim years delin- quent oould not returnthe money so colleotedto the taxpayerbeoauseArtiole 7298 did not operateto extinguishthe debt, but rather such artiolowas a stat- ute of liwitatioawhich had to be speciallypleaded.
In line with the ativw-quoteddecisionsand opinionsof this deparb- meut,we concludethat suitsmay be broughtfor the colleotioaof sohool dis- triot taxes whioh are delinquentfor sure thanten years but that the tawpayer mpy affinaativKl.yplead Article 7298 as a bar or defenseto the recoveryin suoh suits.
EGrLMzegw Yours re*+nlly AFPROVRDAFR 10, 1941 /s/GROVER SELLRRS ATTORNEYGENE& OF TEXAS hi2S.T ASSISTANT ATI'OBHFY GENERAL by /s/ SillyGoldberg Assistamt