We have from the General Iand Office a certificate showing~the foLIowing facts:

That Section 32, Bbck 80, Tqwnship 1, Certificate 6961, T. Ek P. Ry. Co., 640 acre6 in El Paso County, wB6 awerded October 4, 1924to Sam 0. Miller on 6ppliCEtiOD:flb2a in thrkia Off* Septhkar 2g19!?4 to purchsse da Section at$2.06 jper acre without 6edhlemmt, 66ms having t&en CbSEified a6 Mineral. ana Grezlng and appraise8~at.$2.00 per acre;.

That Sam 0. MZller.conveyd said %ctioti 32, with~%th&"lana, to FelixP. Miller by instrument dated April 6, 19251 That .the aale covering said Section 32 ws6 forfeited July 1, 1927 for non-payment of interest;

That upon request ana psymsnt of the required fee ida Sectionj3Z& as containing 640,acree, was reappraiied September 18, 1927 by the Commissioner of the General Iana Office at $2,&O per acre;.; and time ws6 awarded Dscem'ber 30, 1927 td FelixP.Mlller,on apaication filed in the Iand Office December 9, 1927 to repuSqbase said Secti& 6t $2.00 par acre under the provisions of Ch6pt&.:94 of En Ad amoved March lp;l925;

TMI da Seoticm 32, as mmtsining 640 acres of ma in ~1 Paso County, now stands on the rec0rd.s of the Lend Office in the hems of Felix P. Miller.

Taxes assesseaa&.n6tthis land. for the years 1926 to 1929 became delin9uent and have never been paid. You request our opinion in your letter of May 12, 1941, as to whether the present owner of said. land mu& psy the taxes assessed against said land prior to its repurchase in December , 1927. The *2 taxes cuzxerned sre those accruing for the year .1&and 1927. It WII.I be r.oYcadl that taxes for both of those years had been aesesfied against the i.sr.l prior to the forfeiture on July 1,1927.

Article 5326, Revisea Civil Statutes, reaas d psrt a6 follows:

If sx:; port533 of the icterest 03 any sale 6hdd not be pia when am, the land shall be 6UbjeCt to forfeiture by the Commies~rf.m&er- ing on the wrapper containing the papers %ed Forfeit&," or words : of similar wrt, with tl;e date of a-uch action an3 sign it officially, ara Zereum the land ax3 all peyfcents skull be forfeited to the

St&$,sr‘: +;>fi lands sixli be dffered for sale on a subsequent sale date. Ir axy "sse where lads hgvlvb been forfeited to theState for the non- p3yv:r.t of interest, the pwchaserp,or their vendees,'may hsve their ~23s rsiastrted cm their written~regue'sti by paying Into tha Treasury the %il amount of interest sue on such claim up to the dste of rejnd ststemect, provided that no r%ghts of third pe$sons may h6ve~lnterven@d~ In all such cases, the original obligations and penalties shall thereby become as bi@ing as if no forfeiture had ever occurrd. . . .,? . r

In the case of GerlechMercantile Company v. State, 10 S. W. (26) 1035,

Writ of error refused, it was held that where state lands were forfeited for failme to pay interest and later repurchased under Article 5326s; Revised Civil Statutes, the tax liens due the State at the date of forfeiture would rem-k unimpaired and in full force and effect.

Our opinion follows that your question must be answerea in the affiruetive.

Yours very truly ATTORNFXGEKERALOFTEXAS s/GlemR. Iewls

w Glenn R. Iewis

Assistant APPROVEDOPINION XNMITTEE BY B. W. B. CHkIRMAN AT=l'ORiEYCENERAL