1n your letter of August 29, 1946, youorlled our attentioa to a traot of about five thouaaE' aorea of land,ia Bowi@ County, Texas, on whioh no state, oourty or sohool faztm hwa beon paid siaoe 1919. .Ths Bowie COUWYLO~~O Rnprovement Dirtriot Xo . 2 wan oreatad'ia 1919, the l buve deforjbod traot being all of the lr8d within l id dirtriot. Bondr were ls- sued on vvanl oooasiona by the distriot invarying amoumtr, aad the bonds are still outstanding. You &ate that the distrlat is now "defunot," aad that a Mro Porn11 olnims to have over 61% of the ?zoad issue.Pnd is holding himself out as manager of the traot of lud.

In subsequent correspondence with youn we are idvised that the land mus never conveyed to said distriot, but that, in your opinion, title to the land is still in certain private individuals. In your original opiaion request, you sukait fvr our oonsideratioa the followiag questiollsr Olo IS this distriot liable for stats, oounty amd school tb~xea? u20 If it.is liable amd the State foreoloses iBs tax lien in due time, B

Bill the countyand tate in any way becane liable to the bondholders for

t&o mount of their beads?

"30 In the event suit is filed for the oolleotioa of such taxes, would it be neoassary to have oitatiom issued aad served upon all bondholders? n40 .When the names of the bondholders are unkaowm and the officers of the defunot district are unknomm, could service be had by publiation?"

Sfaos the district in qua&ion, which is a body politic and-oorp- orate (Art. 7979, R.S.), never oaod the 8 aid property, your first ques- tion is an-red in the negative. Further, siaoe the property ia not publioly owned, it is not exrmptkan tmtioa. St. Edwards' College V. Morris, Tax Collector ( Sup, Ct.) 17 S.% 6120

Honorable Max&l Welch - Page 2 (O&Cl)

Referring to your seomd question, In thewoat the Stata should forolose its lien, there muld be ao liability by the &to or runty to bondholders3 although the land in question might be subjeot to a tax lien in favor of the distriot for my unpaid taxes levied ly the district for the purpose of rst',riag said bonds or for other purposes.

Bondholders, as such, have no lien upon the properky in a distriot. The lien arises by virtue of the tax levied by the distriot to pay the principal and interest on the bonds, uidthetax ad lien are ia favor of the distriot. It would theroforo ba unneoessary to make the bondho;dero parties to your foreclosure suit. Ilbme amming, of oourso, that a0 valid transfer of its tu lisr has heon made by the district to bondholders or other transferees.

Your third quostim is also alurwerad ia tho negative.

This makes u amwwrto your fourth question urneoassary. % enclose herewith a oopy of our Opinion No. O-6662 which you may find of rssistanoe inthis mattum

Yours vary tlu1y A'STQRNEYOENEFzALOFTEXA8 BY /a/ J. &%hur 8.ndlir J. &%hur Suzdlin A5sidmat APPRWED MARCH L3, 1946

/p / Cwlos Ashley APPRWED

FIRST A6SISTANT ATTORmY GENERAL oPmIoN COUITPEE

a B.lV.H.8. J~U:ms:egw shaiman