Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN Honorsbla Bsecom 011~s Commissionerof the General Ls~d Office Austin, Texas Dear Slrr opiAloA Ho. o-7135 Re: Should the Land CoPlirsloner The question you determliitlonis as foU.g~sr should the Ls cuted after s question are briefly lme prior to f921 vaa land in Culberson County, ferrad payment plan. Delin- rem taxes accrued against this ram 1921 to 1933, and OA Agrll 8, s foreclosedby a tax judgment ad- ra J. Bell, deceased, and~hls 1936, and the sheriff executed a deed to the State on June 16, 1936. On March 19, 1939, the LsAd Commissioner forfeited the land for non-paymentof interest under the pro- visions of Article 5326, R. C. S., 1925. Subaequentlg,the sheriff of CulberaoA,CouAty,after the forfeiture, advertised snd sold the land to a third party vhose name has AOt been given. The pertinent portion of Article 5326, Revised Ron. Bsscom Olles - Page 2 Civil Statutes of Texaa, 1925, as of the date vhen the facts arose, reeds as follovs~ "If sAy portion of the interest on aAy sale should not be paid vhen due, the land shall be subject to forfeiture by the Commissionerenter- ing on the wrapper containing the papers 'Land Forfeited',or words of simller import, vlth the date of such action and sign it offlclally,and thereupon the land and all payments shall be for- feited to the State, &Ad the laads shall be offered for sale on a subsequentsale date. IA aAy case vhere lands have been forfeited to the State for non-payment0:.interest, the purchasers. or their wr;;;,r~;~ve their alalms reinstated on their by paying into the Treasury the full amount of interest due on such claim up to the date of reinstatement,provided that no rights oi third pcir- sons may have intervened. . . .’ We shall rlrst aonsider the effect of the aherlff's tax deed executed on June 10, 1936 to the State of Texas. Actually, the sheriff could convey A0 more Interest than the heirs had on that date. The heirs did not possess the legal title. The legal title remained in the State ao long as the purchase price remained tm id. 2 Tax. Jur. 32; Thompson v. Cutton, 96 Tex. 205, 71 S.W. 54r f ffulf,West Texas lkPacific R. C. v. Cornell, 84 Tex. 541, 19 S.W. 703; Parker v. Brown, 80 Tex. 555, 16 S.W. 262; Austin v. Bu~gan, 46 Tex. 236; Ximbro v. Rsmllton, 28 Tex. 560; Lam- bert v. Weir, 27 Tex. 362; Smlth'e Mmlnistratora v. Oar%a, 15 Trx. 150; Wi field v. Smith, (Clv. App.) 241 9. W. 531; Spear- man v. Wms, T civ. App.) 207 S. W. 572; Peterson v. Rector, (Clv. App.) 127 S.W. 561; Levlest v. Wright, 86 S.W. 10391 Campbell v. RcPsddeA, 31 S.W. 436. The Supreme Court of Texas iA State v. Eke, 206 S. W. 342, held in a case involving school land that "the title remsins in the State, and the purchaser has only the right to acquire it by continued oompllsncevith the conditionspre- scribed by the statute." Prom the foregoingauthoritiesve conclude that the sheriff'sdeed dated June 10, 1936, did not disturb the legal title to the land. It merely divested the heirs of IM J. Bell of whatever equities or rights they had. 8. BOA. Bescolp@lea - Page 3 Section 10, Article 5421~~3, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes of Texas, vestisexclusive authority in the U Commissionerto issue wards on sahool land after the School Lsnd Board has accepted the best bids submitted;therefore,the sheriff of Culbereon County has no pover'or euthopity whatsoever to divest the Skate's title to public school land. The lend vas forfeited on March 19, 1939, under the provisions of Article 5326, supra, and OA that date full and complete tFtle became vested in the state of Tcxes. We hold that the second sheriff's deed executed to a third person sometime after March 19, 1939, is vholly void and of no force or effect. The grantee (third person vhose name has not been furnished)under this latter deed acquired no Interest whatever in the land. For the foregoing reasons alone ve conclude that the Land Commlsslonerla vlthout authority to accept en applicationfor reinstaterrant under the clrcum.etencea. A second reason vhy the Land Commissionerehould not recognina the applicationfor reinstatement1st the grantew under the sheriff'stax deed doee not come Vlthin the class of 'purchasersor their vendees* as contemplatedby the provisions of Article 5326, oupra. The original purchaapr vaa Ina J. Bell. Under the particularfacts, the grantee could not be a vendee of the purchaser. Thus, it Is the opinion of this department :that your question should be aneuered in the'negative. Yours very truly Assistant JRBT 0 APPROVED OPINION (cOYMllT#~ IIY 0”11”“.”