Texas Attorney General Opinion: C-475 Page: 4 of 5
5 p.View a full description of this text.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Hon. Jesse James, page 4 (C-475)
In the Southern Pacific Transport Co. case the Court held
that in a suit to escheat unclaimed wages, a plea by the holder
that the claims of the wage earners were barred by the two and
four year statutes of limitation, would preclude the escheat of
such wages in the absence of a showing by the State that facts
existed which avoided the plea of limitations.
After a study of all of the provisions of Article 3272a we
cannot conceive that anyone could contend that the reporting of
property required by the statute is tantamount to taking such
property under the statute. If a holder of property reported
under Article 3272a should feel that the state is not entitled
to take such property, then he may refuse to deliver such pro-
perty to the State Treasurer and await the institution of a
suit under Section 4(d) of Article 3272a to compel delivery of
such property. In such proceeding the holder may raise such
defenses as he may think are available to him and the state
will have the opportunity to introduce any evidence which is
available to avoid such defensive pleas.
The Legislature has met twice since Attorney General's
Opinions WW-1180, WW-1189 and WW-1232 were rendered. The 59th
Legislature was in session on January 27, 1965, when the Supreme
Court of Texas entered its order refusing a Writ of Error in
Southern Pacific Transport Co. v. State and on February 1, 1965,
when the United States Supreme Court rendered its opinion in
Texas v. New Jersey. They are presumed to have known of these
court decisions and the construction accorded the reporting
provisions of Article 3272a by the opinions of this office. 39
Tex.Jur. 248-250, Statutes, 8 132, and cases there cited. The
59th Legislature in fact amended Article 3272a on May 26, 1965,
without changing the language interpreted by this office in
WW-1l80, WW-1189 and WW-1232, and without indicating that our
interpretation was in error. In view of these circumstances,
it must be presumed that the Legislature has acquiesced in such
interpretation and for us to now hold that the reporting of
the personal property inquired about in your letter is unneces-
sary would be an unconstitutional usurpation of the legislative
prerogative. Section I of Article II of the Texas Constitution.
SUMMARY
Personal property held in Texas by foreign
corporations for persons whose last known address,
according to the books and records of the corpora-
tions, is outside Texas or whose address is unknown-2253-
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: C-475, text, July 30, 1965; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth268894/m1/4/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.