August% 1969
Honorable Robert Buntyn Opinion No. M-445
County Attorney
Castro County Re: Whether a custom
Dlmmltt, Texas . cattle feeding lot is
obligated to furnfsh
County Tax Assessor
with the names of those
owning cattle with said
lot on January 1st and
the number of such'
cattle, upon demand of
Dear Mr. Buntyn: such Assessor. RQ 485
In your recent request for opinion, you raised a question
concerning the interpretation to be placed upon certain pro-
visions contained In Article 7243 Vernon's Civil Statutes,
which statute reads as follows:
"Any person, co-partnership, association
or corporation doing business in this State as
a warehouseman or operating or controlling a
warehouse or place of storage, shall, upon
demand of the tax assessor of the county fn
which said busfness ls operated or In which
property 9s so stored, on January 1st of each
year, furnish to the said tax assessor, a
list of the property so stored In such ware-
house or place of storage, together with a
list of the owners of such property and their
residence. The term 'place of storage' as
used herein shall also Include all cold
storage or refrigeration plants wherein goods
of any nature are stored. Any person or agent
or representative of such copartnershlp,
association, or corporation who shall fall to
furnlsh such list and information as set forth
above upon demand by the tax assessor of the
county fn which such property is located,
shall be subgect to all the penalties now
exlstlng against any person for makfng a false
rendition of property for the purpose of
taxation." Acts 3rd C.S. 1923, p. 165.
-2206-
. .
Hon. Robert Buntyn, page 2 (M-445
The facts giving rise to your request for such opinion
are as follows:
“In January of 1969 the Hon. Kent
Birdwell, Tax-Assessor Collector of Castro
County, made demand on Dimmltt Feed Yards,
Inc., a custom cattle feeding lot situated
In Castro County, for a list containing
the names of the owners and the number of
cattle each owner had located In the Dlmmitt
Feed Yards, Inc. 103 in Castro County as of
January lst, 1969. Dimmitt Feed Yards, Inc.,
after some discussion, agreed to furnish the
names of the owners having cattle placed
with them on that date but would not furnish
Mr. Blrdwell with a list containing the
number of cattle placed there with them by
each owner on January lst, 1969.”
Specifically, you have asked whether Dimntitt Feed Yards,
Inc. is obligated to furnish a list to the Tax-Assessor Col-
lector of Castro County, containing the name of the owners and
the number of cattle each owner has placed in such commercial
feeding yard as of January 1st of such year upon demand by the
Tax-Assessor Collector. You further asked whether or not the
penal provisions of Article 7243 would apply In. the event the -
commercial feed lot In question failed to comply with the Tax-
Assessor Collector’s demand,
In our consideration of this question we are assuming
that Dimmitt Feed Yards, Inc. is a commercial feed lot having
as its primary function the “finishing out” of cattle for
market. We assume that the cattle under the control of this
feed lot were placed there by their owners for the primary
purpose of having their weight substantially Increased and not
merely for safekeeping. Although your request did not state .
such, we understand the customary practice In feed lot operat-
ions Is that the owner of the cattle compensates the feed lot
for the weight added to cattle as opposed to compensating the
feed lot for the period of time that the cattle are In the
possession of the feed lot.
Whet.her Article 7243 Is applicable to Dlmmitt Feed
Yards, Inc., thereby making such lot obligated to furnish the
list to which you refer, necessarily involves a resolution of
the question of whether a commercial feed lot is a “place of
storage” as that phrase Is used in said statute.
- 2207 -
. .
Hon. Robert Buntyn, page 3 (M-445)
Article 10, Vernon's Civil Statutes, provides that In
construing statutes the ordinary meaning of the words thereof
shall be applied. Concerning the construction of statutes,
the following rules are found in Railroad Commission v. T. &
N.O. R.R. Co., 42 S.W.2d 1091 (Tex.Clv.App. 1931 error ref.1:
'In construing a statute, the one and
paramount rule Is to ascertain the intention
of the Legislature, which must govern In
every Instance. [Citations omitted1 The
Intention of the Legislature must be gathered
from the language of the statute construed as
a whole, giving the words used their common
and ordinarily accepted meaning; and, If the
words employed are free from ambiguity and
doubt, and express plainly, clearly, and
distinctly the Intent, according to the natural
Import of the language used then no occasion
arises to look elsewhere. ~Cltatlons omitted]
It may also be here noted that the statute
under construction Is not only remedial In-its
nature, but penal as well, and must be con-
strued with at least a reasonable degree of
strictness with respect to Including anything
beyond the immediate scope and object of the
statute, even though within the spirit, and
nothing can be added to the act by Inference
or lntendment." [Citations omitted.1
In Webster's New InternatIonal Dictionary, Second
Edition, the word "storage" Is defined as being the "act of
storing, or state of being stored; specifically, the safekeep-
ing of goods In a warehouse or other depository." Such work
defines the word "store" as "that which is stored for future
use" and "that which Is accumulated, or Fassed together: a
source From which supplies may be drawn; "continued keep-
ing"; a place of deposit for goods especlallF for large
quantities; a storehouse; warehouse; magazine. Black's Law
Dictionary Fourth Edition, defines 'storage" as the "safekeep-
ing of goo& in a warehouse or other depository." Therein the
verb 'store" 1s deflned as follows: "to keep merchandise for
safe custody, to be delivered In the same condition as when
received, where the safekeeping Is the principal object of
deposit, and not the consumption or sale. (citations omitted.)
In common parlance; live animals are not deemed as
'stored. State v. Frost, 17 Atl.2d 444 (1941). But see
Hubbard & M. Commission v. Cochran, 264 MO. 581, 175 S.W. 599
(1911), 132 A.L.R. 532.
-2208-
, .
Hon. Robert Buntyn, page 4 (M-445)
In Tres Rites Ranch Co. v. Abbott, 105 P.2d 1070
(N.M.Sup. ,> the following comments
concerning the word "storage":
"It Is entirely Illogical to contend that
cattle can usually be stored like ordinary
commodities. Storage connotes a certain degree
of permanency and lmmoblllty, but grazing, or
similar terms that are in use to denote to the
manner of harboring cattle, connote transclence."
"While there may be some small amount of
diminution when goods are stored, It seems
wholly improbable that It may Include a material
Increase in the quantity of goods stored."
The reasoning employed in the above case was adopted in
the Texas case of State v. Harper, 188 S.W.2d 400, 403
(Tex.Clv.App. 1945, error ref, and cert. den. 327 U.S. 805).
Applying the foregoing definitions and rules of statutory
construction to the phrase 'place of storage", as such phrase
Is used in Article 7243, it Is the opinion of this office that
a custom cattle feeding lot Is not a "place of storage".
Therefore, the owner of such lot Is not obligated to furnish a
county tax assessor the names of those owning cattle with such
lot on January 1st of such year and the number of such cattle
upon demand by such tax assessor. To hold a custom feeding
lot to be a 'place of storage" would be to violate the rule an-
nounced In Railroad Commission v. T & N.O.R.R. Co., supra, to
the effect that statutes that are not only remedial In nature,
but penal as well, must be construed with at least a reasonable
degree of strictness with respect to including anything beyond
the Immediate scope and object of the statute, even though
within the spirit. Cattle are placed in such lots to be
"finished out" and not for safekeeping. The primary purpose of
delivering cattle to such lots is to have the cattle's weight
Increased and not for the cattle to be returned in the same
condition as when received. The court's comments in Tres Rltos
Ranch Co., supra, very definitely lndlcate that a custom cattle
feeding lot should not be considered a "place of storage."
- 2209 -
.
Hon. Robert Buntyn, Page 5 (M-445
A custom cattle feeding lot is not a
"place of storage" as such phrase Is Intended
In Article 7243, Vernon's Civil Statutes,
Therefore, Dlmmitt Feed Yards, Inc. is not
obligated to furnish the county tax assessor
a list of the names of those owning cattle
located within said lot on January 1st of
each year and the number of such cattle,
upon demand by such assessor,
Verfitruly youra,
Prepared by Louis G. Neumann
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Kerns Taylor, Chairman
George Kelton, Vice-Chairman
John Reeves
Ed Esquivel
Jerry Roberts
Alfred Walker
W. V. Geppert
Staff Legal Assistant
Hawthorne Phllllps
Executive Assistant
-2210-