!R?~~A~oRNEYGENE~
OF TEXAS
Honorable,Georgt H. Shtppwd
Comptrol'lerbf Public Aaeounts
Austin, T4xas
Bear sir: Opinion No. O-3261,
Re: Whether Federal Land Bank may pay
taxes assessed against particular
piece of land, the same having
been reduced to judgment, anI the
judgment also foreclosingother
taxes on different Landis.
Wt have pour letter of March 11, 1941, accompatiiedby
oorrtepond4n44 betw44n y~%,and ii.&. Hutson, Tax Ames&or and Coll4cto.r
of Trinity Cowlt .and ,tit$re'alao,
bcU&attached copy,o,fa.judgment;
rtidertd w f#xeE'&r%tt Sourt of~flWn%tyCounty at.the~Xazx?h Tcno ~"
*,1%36,'inCa~s~,~o.,3914~~~itp~t~qtatt OP ,%a& tr.~mdley.V&rner, !in
that judgement#orec;losure~In b&half of .theState was ordered upon
several different tracts or parcels of land for taxes delinquent for'
the years 1930 to 1934, Inclusive. The Federal La& Bank has a lien
on a particular80 acres out of the A.L. Slawson Sxzrveyan8 desires
to pay the tax48 due and ordered foreclosed against that,particular
tract, withoutpaying the taxes ordered foreclosedon the other pieces
OS property +witioned in thadudgment. You request our opindon as to,
whether the plsnkshould be'permittsdto make such peyme$$. We assu1k4
from th4 coxkwpondence that no ordtr af Bale has issued and that an
abstr,act.:ogthe judgg4nthas not been Filed,
At our reqti@styou have obt~ainedfor us a copy of the
petitioriin'iaid ~&NBS NO, 19x4. Lf the ~judgmentitself doe8 not m8b
it clew2 that said 80 sure tract was separatelyassessed for the tares
due against It for the years Pn question, a reading of the petition
itself dispels any doubt on~that saoPc. It clearly appaara theref%?om
that all of the tFacts desclrlbedin the judgmentwere not assessed in
solid0 or as a single whole but that the tract ln uuestbdn was SepaFatelY
assessed from any of the other tracts. Such ""QQ.yt t%;;nn&mBd
powerless, even if It hac~so attempted, to fix a
order It sold for taxes assessed agaabnstthe other lands State Etg,
Carp, V. Ludwig, 48 S,#, (2) 950; Davis v. West,‘5 S.W. 12). 879; Rlchey
v. Ibtrr, 249 S.W. 172. We accordingly answer your question in the
affirmative.
You also sent us copy of a judgment rendered by the same
court in Cause No. 1943, styled State of Texas v. W.G. Magee, land sub-
mltted a similar question regarding It. We did not request a copy of
the petition In that case, feeling that our answer to your question in
regard to cause Alo.1914 would be a sufficientguide for th? Tax Assessor
. ..-
Honorable ffeorge H. Sheppard, page 2 O-3261
end Oolleetor, Ii thwt Z8 any aubet+ntisl difference in the two pro-
UiWd~8 yoiimaJr cibt&%Wf~F ii% ti’aap~ Of tht getition and wt ori31 be
&%d to advi.863 YOU Z%m &USN HO, 1943.
Yours verg truly
ATTORNEY CtENESAL OF TEXAS
By a/ Glenn ii.Lewis
Gknn R. Lewis
Assistant
GRL:js:wc
APPROVED APR 16, 1941
s/ Grover Sellers
FIRST A@ISTANT
ATTGRHEY GENERAL