OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF
AUSTlN
ApI 6, 1999
&-able Char&m 8. MeXllBn
colmty Attorney
San Anguatlne county
San AllA@letine,
Texas
nonorable Charles S. UoUlllan, AprU 6, lQZ?Q,Page 8
Xa your'flrst and seoo5d qucettons are 80 e&izbelyre-
lated we will discusa thcpntogetlmr. Itwlll be notIded that tlie
statute saya "the wlleotlon or all dellnsuent ad valorem taxes
+ * * Is * * * barred.- We believe It meana only what It says,
1
end that IS that only delfnquent ad valoram taxes are barred; aad
It dose not mea5 that the oolleotion or judgmenta are barred, al-
thou@ the judgments are ror ad ralorem taxes. The State.8 olaIm
rm taxes due .and a judepent in rar0r 0r the State for tax88 are
t3v0dirrerent things. As long a8 It was only a eau8e of action
ror taxes due, nithout being reduoed to udgmmt, It wa8 8ubjeot
to anr bertme t& partloular taxpapr l&A tharrtouleptvm8nt
of those taxes, I+ rhen,It kou a jwlvnt It tlmm8r buamo
a dlfrerent lclnd ofdebt, whloh was not mbjeot to them dmtenarr.
Ber o rjudg
e m aIt twa 8a 0~80o flotlon for We8 duo but aStar
juder*nt it ~88 a 6&t by tlrtuo of. the ju@aut, ‘rab 4he~ tiMant8
;:-Iof taratIon and tu1aw were 0 lor&r +liaeotod with tt. She dir-
r ennoI8 o wa ll lplaInedlathe euo of..rmmrqb lk'rnV~*H11?Zl~,
:," (W. Va. hp. Ct. App.) 48 W.V& 88@, 87 8tiFf,W& I#@Lt--8Lb,'mr
$;~ follorr ~,
ii
_._' ‘Ilo ma tterwh8t th e .muo 0rleti0n.w
rQioh that Judgment rested, tbr law I8 well
uttled ttmt, whatever that au8e or aotlen
wu', it 18.mtw~d, olued, urd 4wnnloa-~Ix,.::~~- '~,.
r&at per8o581 JudgPrntr for,jgrn a perroarrt:
jtu@unt Is huered upou rof oauu ~Oi,~~,
: that oawe oannot k ydo udo .tho Ub$qot of
l.~mit, a n6
th ojt& p nt
is.t~erurtor th oa tlo
tUt Oi @e d&t8 O? the pattb8, - OOmt~tUtU
6 Oc* debt, Of thr hi@WJt digPitt 6108%B&thO
rtatute of llmItath5s on tam orI.i&al ~oauu of
dlOll. Suoh 18 ,tha gosore 18~. 16 k. b.By.
&a. Law, 83fbsmum. Jwlgm. 8eO8. Blb4lV. By
the judgment th8 d0bt Is Wmnged Into a utter
or record and merge6 lathe ju54pxtt, and th8
$kLinUft’8 r8mJd~‘Is upon th0 l8tter 84W@w
mu10 lt remalq8 la mroo.* 'The orl@lnal
Ohio. h88, by bei.agsaed Open Rid mer8ed ti the
.jud&ment,lost it8 ri$al1* m& lxpeaded it8
r0r00 and effeot.1 ala& Jadgn. se8. 694."
The 8trtlit8 15 qu88tiOP *a8 SMUd in loti, ad the j&j-
1(Df8 for taxe8 that you rarer to wem obtalud by the State prior
to that time, 8ome being obtaIno(l prior to 191.9,and t bar8 roforrrd
;Q& your 88eond questian being obtalmd after 1910 but betom
Ii the Le&J.atqre had Intmidbd for the oolleotlon~Or juddp
wti ior taxer to be barred it would ham 8al6 86, iostead of nere-
‘.
Eimorable Charles S. McXlllan, April 6, 1939, Pa&e 9,
ly eaylng "the oollection oi all deli.npuontad Yaloremtaiee due”
wire to be barred.
We do not believe that the Le@tlature intended for thi8
8witUte to apply to jUdg!MntS already in eXiStmoO at the time it
wa8 pa88ed; and, therefore, our answer to both your first quutlon
and your 8ew5d qUe8tion 18 “no”.
.
We will mw endeavor to finswerporn third qwstlon. Wo
umm you hare rercreaoe to Art$ole 553.2of the BevI8od Civil stat-
utes, aloh read8 a0 fOuOW8:
The eonstrahIai that thi &es ootmtnham plao.4on ohis
$&ol.a ls Sqm88Oa In 86 Tex. atlr. 409. as folluwsc
‘sy its torso &Is etatut. applied b&t&i
proa*adlag8torarl~in4aot~~ oiljuaguat8.
Au6 it O-X-0684 ban aotlon where oxeou-
-ii xwghtattorrtho l
t1Qa has n0t lm3ue4,~lt *
plratlorrof ten yoam tram th8. date ,of the.
JQQP-t.
"A&hou@ the 8htUte -8 m provirion
for a oue inub.loh UmailOn ha8 issutMfEy
analog)Qt l8 hold that an aotlon is Barred.~rt.-
the apQmtIotl of tm yean tram the bate whbn
the la& exomtioa luud.' -
Bonarable Cbarlei Si MoMillan. April 6, 1959, pase 4
v&thin thi8 state, where axeontlon baa not i8-
suedwithin twelve month8 after the rendition
of the judgamt, amy be revived by mire faolae
or an aotlon of debt bnmght thereon wIthIn tan
rear8 after tb date of suoh julgamt, and nd
after.’ Rev. St. aI% s581. mU# 1hitatiOSI 18
express where exeo.utlonha8 not i88UOd within
12 -thS, but Where OXeOUtion h88 80 i88td no
peed Or aIIit8tiO5 18 erpre88iy pre8OrIbkd.
But 110rea8on is seen why the Legislature
should
pro8orlbo a llaltation in the on8 oeu and nd
outlon or the lmt aot of bilI6ako0.~ +
,+lrt, SPuklRg thnntgh chfbr-al8tIoa P@llp~,.msdi’
,. .:1
Wo hare acmr had i otatiate,amhaye no6
Row, oxpmr*ly lOr DIr q th ep er io d
dt limita -’
tr,01
tlo n fo r 8n a 0 to 1r evit*a judep mt up o n
~,wh lc k alxaautlonhacr
n duly lsmxa& ,%9 e.. :
statuteupon tho subjest rol8t.sto jud~~8
upon*lQsxeuutlonhae.mBt@o mm& Isru
eneote6 at an early , ia &eU beM~yent
ArbIole 6696." l aowArd01e
&th, 6aU Of Oi&JIV8.~tt+8
~s~6ortWorth,the oourt* apm
L
~Aooordtngly, t&t& yur p&la6 of liml-
tetIoJl
pre8Orlbea in Art. sssa lr"lppllo&N
exqeut~onba8.bua lsauod 08 the judgmht .seIIQlt
.toBo syrlwl, bnd 18 mdo fo nd tror the &at.
Of th0 18=StW.'Of the Oti~OUtitiR."
~~..hYO &ttR t&08@ l.rSttbrOi QWtit&OIlS t0 dioirtbt th. OOUXt8
: Mfer to an&tituddor the preemt &Mole W.ar a datute OS lbi-
-tioa.. ;
.
.
'IXonqa~er~rles 8. MaMIllan; April 6, 1939, Page 5
"The dootdne that lache8 ie not Imput-
able ta the mvernumnt waa a aontrolllng raa8on
ror tha rule that 1ImItation did not apply to
tha rrfate,u31l138a
Itwae Inoluded. The oonsldep
ations ofriae pub110 polIoy which were 8uppoeed
to uphold this doatrine rested upon the theory
that ths headofthegnvermnt wa8 en&roeead
with the oare8 002 duties of state, and that the
public should not tbsrefore wrier by rea8ooqof
the negllgonoo 0r his sonante. DiOO~3~4Illg thb
QUUtiO5, the 8Upre OOUl’t Of tb &it& 8kt@8
U8* 4hl8 lW~.t ‘fa 9 - UntetIYo goruln$ :.
wd whore tlm people Q no ?= ad oeuuot u&i&
l b&, rfum tiir per 18 delegated t0 oShq~8,' -
Urd aU8t Or ~~88i~.bO mroi@@d bJ.thQ, if.
OSUOiS~et al, th0 mu008 .r0reppw thO80
pl’b0ifi.S 18 ,-4 OogWt.’ %& Ya ‘%oSpSW,
96U&(L89. T& prIa8&plu nferreatow~~:.~~
b o b i@Lo th e.m to th elffwtth e no ’tJ& k ~~
xulmagninstelegorernwat.It~~on~~
pr&naiplo epplioabb allb~ t04l (lordfrPmt8
aeoo~arlif eotiog thxtm& auwrow ~ag~ts,'~d,
eiite+al the prsmvetlon
to of the Interests
and pmp8rg 0s tho publio, thattha stetUt0 cb
e Stat0 proaorlbfaggmlo& 0rtIw wlthln whloh.
rights aust bo awerted ero'held not to abreoo
fib Ot6tO~ it8eli n!kbU U3XOS84 dW&UktO&*
l[oth6 0a8a of Dolte Cotintyva* Blaokburn,~lOO Tax. Sl, @S 8.W..4l9,
tw W,tUt 8834:
-Ia the 088s 0s BMm me 8~04, w Pa.
. 4!?1,148.W. e(B,ca Qubtt~tn%&thavo beat
left by pUlOU8 400 1 SIOW as Q Whether or ati
tbs StitUtO rune agairuttha8tata inp+WMl
WtiOWWbOA Sllitl&~illit8 &iVOlWUMltal. 0 Wity
waore~ed,and Itwao~heldthntmaro 81Ye a00
Of8O~OfthOS~tQtO8OS th0 aubjeotan& OS-
pro86 p~0dht~8 0s 0th0mtheth0 ro10e4 not
b a rth estate didaot lffeot th 8 n2i.a 0s the
Oapwo.la*fhiohO~~~~'8Ot~~~toa
ths OQUY&IOII Of SWh SwUt08t~ 680; a80,
Staalo~ ~a.8dtalby, 86 'hr. SS6, 19 8.U. X64?
ro tb8 eati00r ~001~8~ YL ~IUZSO~~, 56 sw.
614, it wu .broedly state6thht t+ 8tatUte did
not run ag8lwt’ a oounty~ for the raa8f~n that, ,kt
W(LII e part 0r the
~.~ Of’168 ppt-nta
.- the’lm8uu$ty that .~.
Eonorable Cbarlea 8. HoMlllan,,April 6, lW%, Page 6
.
Tekas Central Railway Go. vs. Travis County,
68 Tar. 18, the prlnoiple was limited to oases
*where the sovereignty 18 substantially Inter-
satedin 8114 VerteU with the fight and ownar-
ship ot the aubjeot matter In litigation and
whIah.18 8oughtto be 8Ub~eOtOd to tha opara-
tlon Or the 8fatute8 of lImltatlone,* axd It
mas, In effeot, he&i thqt ln oth8r ola8ses 0s
case8 the statuto Opl-ilte8 ~agaIn8t OOlmtIe8.
Thio Ui8tinotion reemr% be gewrall~ ob8oned
withr8$weaoetomuaioipal oorparetlow anb to .
protut 06W.8 or aatioa auutod by tlwr WIna
‘thef 8r o OS l p b lI0 Oa t=*, ,a d 8mh es p m-
-
td8 PUXOri. t0 &WYOlUWUt~ -8.-