Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

TEZEATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUEITIN 1s.TEXAS PRICE DANIEL PJTORNEYGENERAL AuLust 9, 1949 Han. c. H. cPvnes8 Opinion v-878 State Auditor Austin, Texas Re: Present ownership and custody of 6.46 acrea of lands, Travis County, Texas. Dear sir: The question raised by you Is stated In your letter as follows: “We respectfully request your opinion as to the present status of a six and forty- six one hundredths (6.46) acre tract of land deeded ,to the State of Texas by one Joeeph A. Megle on December llth, 1883. “During the course of our current audit of the accounts of the (fame, Fish end Oyster Co~lss1on, we learned of a deed recorded in the County Clerk’s offloe- of Travis County, Texas, Vol. 58, page 276, oonveylng the above mentioned tract of lead for the consideration or Nine Hundred end Sixty-nine ($969.00) dollrra. “In our attempt to eroerteln the rlght- fail ourtodlen or this land, we reed the ep- proprlatlon bill ror the year ended February 2gth, 1884 (II asred by the 18th Imgi8l&ture, Regular Searion 7 and round for the drprrt- rent or Fiuh Conl~~~lonec en appropriation ror One Thourmd ()l,OOOiOO) Dollars which reed ~Conat~otiea of eddltlonel Fish Ponds and puroheae or ,lmd, to be approved by the Oovernor .I .A.sswl that the lend waft bought ror the tme or the Y lsh Commissioner we reed hla report for the year8 1883 end 1864, end found mention of the purchase of the land In question, to be used by the Fish Commlsrloner a6 ‘Carp Ponds, t Hon. C. H. Cavness - Page 2 -V-878 “The office of the Fish Commissioner was abolished by the 19th Legislature and its property transferred to the Superin- tendent of Public Buildln s and Grounds. (Gamel’s, Vol. 9, page 65 &). We found In the report of the Superintendent of Pub- lic Buildin s and Grounds for the years 1885 and 18 8 6 that he had taken charge of the 6.46 acre tract In question and had offered It for sale or lease as authorized by the 19th Legislature, but apparently It was not sold - In the 1888 report from the same officer we again found the land mentioned as property of the State of Texas, Since that report, however, we have been unable to find any further men- tion of It. “Does the State still own this land and, If so, In whose custody does it belong?” We have read the above referred to deed es the same appears of record in Volume 58, page 276 of the Deed Records of Travis County and find that it is the ordinary form of general warranty deed, containing no words of lim- ltation, condition or reservation which mighti cause a re- version of the title. The deed does, however, contain a statement that the 6.46 acre tract is to Include the “State Fish Ponds, ” thus indicating the existence of State ponds on the tract prior to the date of the conveyance. We are advised by a local abstracter that there is no evidence in the records of Travis County that the State has ever conveyed or otherwise disposed of the traot in question. Although we have not been furnished with ab- atrects and therefore have not examined the title and do not pass on its validity into Nagle, nevertheless, it would appear from the investigation made by us and by your office that whatever title was conveyed by Nagle to the State has not been conveyed or otherwise disposed of by the State of Texas. The State’s title is not affected by the lapse of time, lathes, adverse possessldn or the dereliction or failure to act of its officers. Humble 011 & Reflglng Company v. State, 162 S.W.2d 119, 134 (Tex. Clv. App. 1942, error ref.). Hon. C. H. Cavness - Page 3 -v-878 Based upon the foregoing, it would appear that whatever title the State got to the 6.46 acre tract is still vested In the State of Texas. Subject to constitutional limitations, the power of the State with respect to Its lands and the property rights therein is vested in the Legislature and the Legislature alone can exercise the power ne- cessary to the enjoyment and protection of such rights by enactment of statutes for that purpose. Daughters of the Republic, 106 Tex. 80, 156 %+%-%7 157 S.W. 937 (1913). Although apparently purihased in’ 1883 for an already exfstfng fish pond or hatchery, the land in question has at all times since and Is now sub- ject to such use and disposition as the Legislature may determfne 0 In abolishing the offfce of Ffsh Commfssfoner, the 19th Legfslature, lr.s.1885, ch. 36, provided: “Be ft er,acted by the Legislature of the State of Texas: That the office of Fish Commfssiorzer shall be and the same is hereby abolished; and the fish ponds now belonging to the State of Texas, together with all other property connected with said department, shall be taken charge of by the Superintendent of Public Buildings and Grounds, and shall be sold OP’leased by dfrectfon of the Governor at his discretion, at such time and In such manner as! may be considered mast advantageous to the State, and the proceeds arfsfng from aaid sale to be paid +nto the Treasury as a part 0r the general revenue, I9 It is OUP opinion that; this Act conferred upon the Superintendent of Publfo BuUdings and Grounds not only the duty of selling or leasing the property but, in addition, the general custody of all fish ponds and other properties belongfng to the State at that time under the supervision of the Fish Commlssfoner. The tPact in question clearly was Included within the propertles,9 the custody of which was transferred by said Act. @he office of Superintendent of Public Bulld- fngs and Grounds was created in 1874 (Acts 14th Leg., Ch. 98, ~~165) and continued to exist until January 1, 1920, when ft was abolished end the authority of the Super- Han, C, H, Cavness - Page 4 - V-878 fntendent conferred upon him by the provfsions of Chapter 1, Title 113, A.C,S. of 1911, was trane- ftrred to the Stat,& Board of Control, which came Into existence on that day, (Acts 1919, 36th Leg. R.S,, ~h.167, Set, 7, ~~323; Acts 1919, 36th Leg,lst C.S., Ch. '+> pm 7). We conclude therefore that the title to the land in question is in the State of Texas, that custody, fn the sense of ultimate control and disposition, is in the Legis;ature, and that custody, in the sense of protective aupervisfon and control and present manage- ment, is in the BoaPd of Control. SUMMaRY T:he ,tft,.le to certafn land in Travis County, acquired by the State for the of- fice of Fish Commfssfoner in 1883, which office was abolished and the properties thereof t,ransferred to the charge of the Office of State Superintendent of Public Buildinns and Grounds in 1885, absent a conveyance by the State, and none is of recorl in Travfs County, title is still In the State0 Custody of the land as regards ui%imste control and dfsposPtion fs in the Legislature, Custody as regards present management and ~'~pervfsfon is in the Board of Control, ~uc3essor to the Office of State Superfntendent of Public Buildings anJ Groun,3s o Yours very t.ruly ATTORNEYGENERALOF TEXAS