Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

. ... 1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 3ear 3lrr . ;‘?!a~ the tax ?olluotor accept tee mneg ~8 tonderad and Issue radeqtim reooipt’? ‘~iottld the ~aymint of'the tax aal;tm lspsmnoo of the radeap- tiO5 reOei>t QUt tit10 baO$ ifit0 the OSi&iAti CWAer'" x5 O- OPWOA rr0. 0423, wricte5 by .mkt0ut Attorney Genernl cflsna2. LBpriS,and approved by ?irst .4asiatcult .utoPnog oeneral ‘# . P. l4oore(artenitms Chief Justlee of the :3ugrera Court of Taxa&), we aeld in part 06 r0rm8t uR@dcuxptloA under nrtiala 7283, Civil X.atutee, my be h0a n0 a matter of right lf ereroloed within two yews after tae purahssertadeed la fllod for reoord. *Atiiole 728&b of the Revised Civil Statutes allow redemptisn 08 a sattor of right 0517 if exer- cised within two years rrom the date or sue. “Artiole 7328, civil 3ta&utmt, outlining the .. pracleealngto follow in tax suite, proridea that if 0&y biWt 90 fYJld f%Ad PtlFOhCtQtd by the 33tet0 3.8 AOt redeemedwithin the time gax6oribsd by lw, tne a b sr iif lSbal.i srll the 8am at publh? outory to the higheot bidder for oash aS t&o psinoipal entrmoa to tt;eoourthouee in the oounty whorain the lentilioe' after duo AOtfOts. It itapovided t!u%tthe sheriff ahall mu& tie amuat reoeired fws mch sdla to the State %'rhreaa~XCir titer b%b3tf;l~ t&s il.WUAt of the oountp taxoe, iAtW88t AAd penalty or the oounty tax which he @ml.: pay to Fhc onu~tp treaswr. Wmasnted dirrortmtig, the gtostion is whether the oounty tar oolleotor end OomgtrolXar,jtrlorto a&y oala bp ths snsrlfi, can waive the oaln and acrcept thit CnXOSt, ~OAAlti08 curdiAt0re8t. “Ia the 0830 of L30gue VS. i?tete, 57 3. ‘.i. 34, _ 3up. Ct., affirma 22 3. ~2. t75, hiAd had basn sold for taxes for lU8l+ und bid In by tho .:t9te. 2&eresl%ur, the State brou;;htsuit sK!ainstanother clalzmnt For rjuas1681 taxea, L)Y~11 ds athars f!Lermftxr nssesocd against 9x3 lnnd. ~~soovery mes allmod, it bei.rq aeld that ciiuLtate ic no ZPI:~ welved it6 ri,+ts acqulrod uAc9r th3 Eels. !!onorabla George il.Zhepy.ard, peg:03 “In state vs. :iutley,278 2aa. 206, the ~;uprwic Court of ,YewSotidaoheld t&t SO loner aa ri;zhto cd othsr gartles did not fntervane it was within the power or Ghe Bounty trocraurar, a8 the went OS the dtate, to ;;rra.itradamptlon,althou& the period allowed 3s Q ratter OS right had expired. “In Sahroiber ~8. Y@ynlhan, 47 A. 851, tho 2uprem Courb OS ?enrmylranlaheld that a purohase at a tar 6al1 bg the caunty weo abandoned by %t whara tba land was not thereafter ohargad by tha ooedsslozmra with OOtmty and road taxall,as prwlc?ad by its law, bub was u@moasad aa before and sold Sor ’ the tares so a38sasatl. Court OS Misaissipgi,an Aot 0S 1875 provi&kzq that tbo Stats would abandon all olalmo w.tdorIts prs-etint- fng tar titles ii the mmara would pay the tares for 1374; and in deSatit of paymmt provision belncjmde for a resale OS aald lands, It wa6 beld that uhero cho Jtate &ad bought lands far taxes in 1867, and %