1 minute read

El Paso v. Simmons

Case Background



The land in question was originally sold by the state of Texas in 1910, under a State Land Board program that sold public land for one-fortieth of the principal and annual interest and principal payments. The purpose of the public land sale was to encourage the settlement of Texas and to provide funds for the Permanent Free School Fund. If the interest was not paid according to the contract, the statute caused the land to be forfeited back to the state for resale. A provision of the statute allowed the purchasers to reclaim their land if they paid the full amount of interest due, as long as no third party had intervened. In 1941, the state amended some of the provisions, including the one mentioned, so that it now limited the right of reinstatement to only "five years from the date of forfeiture." Then, in 1951, the right was further limited to only the "last purchaser from the State and his vendees or their heirs." On 21 July 1947, the land in question was forfeited and returned to the state for resale as the interest remained unpaid. A notice about the forfeiture and an explanation of the 1941 act was sent to the last purchaser of the property, but it was returned. On 23 July 1952, Greenberry Simmons filed an application for reinstatement, including all of the interest due, which was denied because it was over the five year limit by two days. The land was sold in 1955 to the city of El Paso. Simmons filed suit against the city, but lost. The court of appeals reversed that decision "on the ground that the constitutional prohibition against impairment of contracts forbade application of the 1941 statute to the contract in question." The case went on to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the possibility that the 1941 amendment may violate the Contract Clause of the Constitution.



Additional topics

Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1963 to 1972El Paso v. Simmons - Case Background, A Violation Of The Contract Clause Or A Lawful Remedy?