Texas Attorney General Opinion: V-997 Page: 4 of 8
8 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:
Hlon. lesse James, Page 4 (V- 99?)
Section 8. Article V of the Constitution of Texas also
provides that:
"The District Court shall have original jurisdic-
tionin all suits in behalf of the State to recover . ..
eacheats ..."
The very early case of Caplen v. C2'ompto.n7 S.W. 24
(Tex. Civ, App., 1893, error ref.), IIUtWt:
"The constitution (article 13, j 1) does not au-
thorise the legislature to create an escheat; it simply
directs it to provide a method for ascertaining wheth-
er or not there has been in any case an escheat. No
man can be deprived of his property except by due
course of law. Bill of Rights, 3 19."
From the above it follows that if we construe the phrase
"shall be deemed to be eacheated property" which appears in the
statute as ipso facto creating an escheat, we would be compelled to
hold the statute unconstitutional.
We think this language, however, is susceptible of a dif-
ferent interpretation which would uphold the validity of the act. We
are required to construe a statute, where words reasonably admit
of it, so as to give it effect, rather than to nullify it. Trustees of
Independent School District of Cleburne v , Johnson County Demo-
Cratt~ CC V&ti &iitteeae, 1 Teex. 48, 5 SWZd 71 5 -1931).
With the above rule of statutory' construction in mind,
we will ow consider whether the phrase "shall be deemed to be es -
cheated property" may be reasonably accorded a meaning which
would obviate the necessity of declaring this statute unconstitution-
al. It will suffice to note a few cases construing similar language.
In the case of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. George.
Howard, 55 F.SUpp. 941(W.D. Mo. 194), the court construedhe
word "deem" to mean "hare an opinion," to "believe," to "suppose."
In the case of State ox rel. Honland v. School District No. 13 of
Prairio CountyMot.E .d 168 (Mont. sup. 1944), the cort
consit e6 utet or "deemed" to mean "considered." n L umber-
mens Mutual Casuty Co. v. McIntyre, 21 S.E.Zd 446 (GaCtA 1942),
the court sa at ieemaed is synonymous with "considered. " In
the case of Zimmerman v. Zimmerman. 15S P.2d 293 (Ore, Supe 1945),
the court constted - the word "deemed as used in a constitutional
provision 3tblatig to residence of one in the military service or in
the employ of the United States as creating only a disputable pre-
sumption. Giving the same effect tthehe word "deemed" in this stat-
ute, as applied in the foregoing cases, we think it may be said to
mean nothing more than that the property shall be considered as
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: V-997, text, February 4, 1950; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth265816/m1/4/: accessed July 4, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.