Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1949 )

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