Opinion ID: 1513201
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: free and clear of debt

Text: The Court of Civil Appeals founded its reversal of the judgment of the trial court as to the 280 acres on the failure of the Regents to acquire the site free and clear of debt to the State. We disagree. Clearly there is no debt to the State in the ordinary sense of the word. The Regents did not buy the land from anyone. There was no unpaid balance. Nor did the Regents assume any debt of the county in accepting the donation from the county. As far as this record shows, the 280 acres which were conveyed by the county were not subject to any debt of the county or anyone. The argument is that the Commissioners Court violated its duties and exceeded its powers; and since it did, a right exists in someone or in the county to cause the transaction to be undone; for the county to get back the money it invested in the park which was given away by the Commissioners; that therefore the 280 acres are subject to a charge or an equitable lien to undo the wrong; and therefore The University took the land subject to this debt. The Court of Civil Appeals held that the 280 acres were thus subject to an equitable lien and hence a debt. The basis for the argument is that the Texas Constitution provides that Commissioners Courts are authorized only to exercise such powers and jurisdiction over all county business  as is conferred by the constitution and by statutes. Section 18 of Article V, Vernon's Ann.St. There is no specific authorization to counties to operate universities in general or to acquire land for universities. The contention is that higher education is not county business. There is authority for counties to acquire parks. So the plaintiffs contend that the County Commissioners knowingly acquired the land as a park, issued county warrants to buy a park with the intention of transferring the park to The University, and did give away the park for University purposes. The warrants were issued, and they apparently are now in innocent hands. But the citizens of the county, the argument goes, have not been fairly treated; and if a proper suit were brought, the citizens or the county ought to be able to look to the 280 acres; and hence the 280 acres are subject to this debt. It is unnecessary for us here to express any opinion on the above theory. The facts are that neither the county nor the county commissioners are parties to this litigation. They would certainly have a right to be heard before any judgments are passed upon them. And as stated, the time warrants issued by the county are general obligations of the county and not secured by the land in controversy. We disagree with the Court of Civil Appeals that the 280 acres are subject to an equitable lien. Again we are cited to no authority to that effect by able counsel for the plaintiffs, and we have found none. The equitable lien theory is difficult to pin down. Generally speaking, a specific debt (an obligation to pay money) is necessary to support a lien; the lien is affixed to land as security for some obligation to pay money. Taylor v. Hudgins, 43 Tex. 244 (1875); Hodges v. Roberts, 74 Tex. 517, 12 S.W. 222 (1889). No specific suggestion is made as to how this equitable lien would be foreclosed. As we view the matter, the strongest argument of the plaintiffs is that a suit might be brought, a recovery might be obtained, a debt established, and a lien affixed. The parties necessary to establish or to disprove such matters are not before us; and, again, we express no opinion as to that. We do say that when the deeds were tendered to the Regents and accepted by them, there was no debt; and that within the contemplation of the Legislature in specifying that the land be conveyed free of debt to the State, the requirement was met.