CQPT
oRl%x OT Tm ATT9RNEYOZNERALOT TNXM w+‘-J
AUSTIN
Ronorablo W. R. Imy
countyAuditor
nrrant aouaty
Port Worth, Tsus
Dear 811~:
OQInIon No. C-1559.
Ret Rhsthar or not It Is nao-
essary to record liens on
motor vshIoles subsequent
to the sfiaotlre data or
Z!ouSs ,BIll No. 407, 46th
LegIslaturs.
Vfs‘are in reoslpt OS your letter of Sept*mbsr 9,
1939, in whioh you requsst an oplnlon ot this Department as
to whether or not it is nsoessary to raoord liens on motor
ro~.Ioles In ths county olark’s office shoe the passage of,
the CrrtIfIoate of Title Act,
vm wlmv&l tn0 ‘ya?ul ywl.+Aa. 4fupvaL UplK w.hfLw
or not th8 csstfrioats of Title Act suQanadas or repeals
ths gsnsrel rsoordfng statutes as to motor rehlolrs. It Is
nscsssary, thsrsrora, to consider the law oonoernlng the rag-
lstratlon of motor tehlclas prior to Ootobsr 1, 1939 and also
to oonsldsr ths siiaot of tha pro~lsions of the Cartfiioata of
Title Act upon the sesa.
Artlols 8490 of ths Rsrissd Civil Statutes provldss,
In part, as r0im8:
*mery ohattel mortgage, dssd OS trust
or other ihstrument of writing, intendsd to
operate as a mortgage, or lien upon-parsonal
props&~, and stary trassrsr thsrsof, whloh
shall not be aocompanlsd by an Immediats
dsllrery aad be Sollowed by an actual end
oontlnued ohangs.or possssslon of ths propsrt~
mortgaged pledged, or afrsoted by such tnstru-
sent, shafl be abaolutaly void as against the
Hononblo W. E. Yanoy, Pegs t
orsdltors of the mortgagor or person making
sus, as lgalst subssquent purohassrs and
mortgagsos or lisn holdsrs in good raith,
unlss~ suoh Iortrumant,or a trus oopy thera-
of shall be iorthulth deposited with and
f&a In the oriior 0r ths oount~ o&erk or
ths oounty whsrr the prop@rty shall then be
situated, or Ii the mortgagor or person mak-
Ing the same be a resident of this gtate,
then, of the oounty of whloh he shall at that
tlma be a realdent; * * * **
Article 5497 of the Revised Civil Statutes reads as
r0ii0rrs t
“Chattel mortgages and other instru-
ments intended to operute as mortgages or
liens upon personal gropsrty shall not bo
reoordrd at length, and all persons shall
be thereby charged with notlos thereof, and
of the rights of ths mortgages, his assignee
or reprrsentatlves thereunder,-
Article 5497a of the Revised Civil Statutes raaas as
‘That all chattel mortgage6 hsroartor
given as security for money advanced ior Thor
purohaso of motor vehioles shall, when reg-
Istersd as roqulred by law OS chattel nort-
gages, be and are superior to the alain or
0laI~8 Of other OreditOrs even though suoh
motor rshlcle or vehicles are daily expo8ad
ror sale. Yr0da0a, however, any such chattel
mortgage shall be void as to bona tide pur-
chassrs when such motor vehioles are dally et-
pored Ir0r 8ala.e
A pro or oonstruotlon of the above quoted titioles als-
oloses thres mas or legal operations of said Laws.
?irst, ArtIols 5490 makes unmoordad chattel mortgages
absolutaly void as against subsequent purtbsers and mortgagees
or lien holders in gcod faith. This provIslon Is Inherent in
our reoording statutes and Is necessary and InQIsgensable Sor a
proper operation OS suoh lawsa
Honorable W. R. Yanoy, Pags S
8000na, tha mcoraing statutes quoted operate to
give oonstruotiro notice to the world of a duly reooraea
ohattsl mortgage. It is to be remembered that Artlols 5497
uses the words aand all persona shall be therrby ohargrd with
notlor thereat.* It would be Im.cossible to enumerate all o?
the oases a80ia8a by the oourts 0r this state rhioh SO hold.
The proposition Is olsarly ltatod In the oass of Nurray Com-
pany Y. Deal,, 176 8. 1. 718:
*from the time the mortgage Is so depdSIt-
ld for registration, It beoomes aonstructlvs
notios of the mortgagees lien.”
See also the cases of Thorndale Ueroa’ntlle Company,
et al., v. Continental Gin Company, 217 S. pi. 1069, and the
Supreme Court case of Cr.rshear vr Watt, 44 S. W. 67.
The third majOT prlnolple Of law wllloh IS a result
0s our recording statutes Is that the priority 0s liens Is
determined by the date of tlllng for reoord of.such liens.
AS a general rula the one first riled ror reoord takes pri-
orlty over those later rii0a. See Smelser Y. Baker 99 S. ?i.
377; Third National Bank of SpringfieldMassaohusetts, et al
Y. National Bank or Comeroe, ot al., 159 S. Vi. 668; J. AZ.
Radford Grooery Conpany V# Pace, et al., 172 S. Ti. 146; Dallas
County State Bank V. CrIsison, et al., 231 8. W. 857; Ridgill
v. 3, L. Wilson RardwaTs Company, et al,, 178.5. Vi. 068; Moors
v. First State Bank of LIvingston, 127 8. R. (2d) 536.
House Bill No. 407, Acts of the 46th Legislature
went into effeot on.Ootobrr 1, 1959 , It is the opinion 0s hi*
Department that It Is now unneoessary to record, liens against
motor vehLole8 In the county clerks* ofrloes. This conclusion
Is ba8.a upon thrss reasons.
First, Hours El11 Ro. 407 Is a new enaotment dealing
specIfIoallywith motor vehicles and oonoerns the same general
subject as the general recording statutes. There can be no
question but that the recording statutes and IJouse Bill No. 407
ars’both designed to protect the Innooent purchaser and the lien
holdsr . Housa Bill No. 407 was passed beoause the Legislature
found thst the general reoordlng statutes aid not offer surrioient
proteotion In the cases of motor vehloles. That this is trus
may be seen from Seotlon 1 of House Bill No. 407:
*Tlii8 Aot shall be referred to cited
and known as ths *certItIoate or Tftle ACb
Iionorablr 1. t. Tansy, Fags 4
and In tha enaotaent hsrrof it Is hersbt
asolaroa to be the lsgIslatIve lntsnt and
p Plio oolic~ or this state to losrm and
p&vent th th rt or motor vahlslas, arid
the i8porctIoi Into this State~of and
traSrIo In rtolon sotor vshi6188, and ths
lootlvely, are to be lIboral1y oonstrued to
that end. The following tens as herein
defined shall oontrol In the enforcement
and oonstruotion 0s this hot."
That the Lcgl~slature considered the present law In-
adequate to prevent the thing set out In Ssotion 1 of the Aot
Is further emphasised by thn eaergency clause of Bouss Bill No.
407, which reads as follows, in parts
** * l * and that many 11s~ have beon
craatsd against plotor vehIolu to the serious
tinanolal loss OS a large number of persons,
and the fact that an early adogtlon of this
Aot will operat3 to materially safeguard
dealing In motor vehicles and using the sams
as security * *- * *O
5vIng seen tae LegIslature~r tindine that the present
rioording statutes ars Inadequate as protection In the oases of
motor vehlales, ths nest ooasldaratlon $8 whether or not ths
Legislature can rspeal or suaprnd tha operations of the general
reoordlng statutes as to motor vehloles by suoh an lnaotnent as
House Bill No. 407 without 8peoIiICally stating that the aam
are su8penara. In this oonneotlon a number of rules of statutory
ooostruotIonare Important,
The queatlon of repeal, whether express or Implied, Is
on8 of legIelatIve Intsnt. See Rogers Y. w&ous, 8 Tex. 6s; St.
Louis 5. K. Railway Company Y, Kay, et al., 65 Tex. 558; ?irst
Ndtlonal Rank va Le8 County Cotton Oil Cornpaw, 274 S. F. 127;
Berry Y. State, lb6 9. W. 626; State y. Texas and N. 0. R. Com-
pany, 126 S. Vi, 65; Fortinberry Y. Statr, 48 S. Oy. (M) 146.
Eonorable Vi.Ii.Tanor, Paga 5
seai0n 66 0s Houss : Ill No. 409 is a general mpeal-
in olaurr whioh roads a8 roilowsr
*All aots or parts of lots Iason8,irtsat
with the provIsIvns of fhir Aot are hereby
rapsalsbs
A uensral repealing olauss Is dfsotlrs to repsal
prior enaotmahts to the extent that thsy ars lnoonslstent dth,
or repugnant to ths terms or the later statutr, Ths Supremo
Court of Texas tn an op’lnlon wrlttsn by fudge Gains8 In ths
case of Caddls, et al. Y’.Terrall, Land Commlssloner, 110 9. vi.
f~~io~~canstruIng a general repnaling clause which reads as
“All laws and pa-rts of laws In oonillot
with the provIsIons of this Aot are hereby
repealed .s
had this to say about the proposition:
*It Is’clear that there Is no express
rspeal; that Is, the provisIon In question
Is not directly ointed out as expressly
repealed, But 8i!no8 the affect ot a gan-
era1 provIslon repealing oontlIcting laws
evinces that the Legislature had In mind
that something was to be repealed, ths
courts will be leas inallnsd against reoo&
airing rspugnanoy In ap.plyIng suoh a 8tatutr.Y
The language above quoted was also quoted In the case of
J~bnson Y, Jo&son, 55 S. W. (Rd) 15.3.
Thera is another rulr of stututory conetrwtlon whioh
is dlreotly apQlIoable to the case at hand. Whers it Is.apparent
that a statute Is bntendsd to ombraoe all the law upon the sub-
ject tilth whloh It deals It supersedes all iOmeT laws relating
to the 8ame subjeot. Thfs rule of construotlon was Invoked br
the Comlssion of Appeals of Texas in the case of First National
Bank ve Lee County Cotton Oil Company, supra, In a ease whIoh wa8
In many respeots analogous to our present sItuatIonr That oass
construed Artlole 579 of the Revised C1?11 Statutes of 1911 which
provided a means of fixing lIabllIty of drawers and endorsers of
bill of exohange othb than by protest and notics. The court held
that the uniform negotiable instrument act of 1910 repealed Article
Honorable 'II. P. Yanoy, Page 8
579 bsoaure the later 8Ot tmat84 of the 8aBo 8Ubj8ot matter
a8 th8 fOZS8re Th8 uniform aegot1ablo inrtrumtnt aot oontaln8d
'a g-mm1 rspaalfng alatur whlohaa8 exactly idantioal with th8
@n8Ed r8QO411ly OhU88 iIl ROU88 Bill NO. 409e Th8 COUrt
qUOt8d irOB the ea88 Of St. hi18 8. \5. mi1-J’ ““““~TV~8Ka’,
.et 810, 8Upr8, in an Opinion WittOIl by tUdg8 0dbS8.
language m8 a qUOt&iOil i?Dlp th8 Oa8. Of mg8l'8 1. WatTOur,
8UpIT4, in Which ths sUpre88 GOtUt Of TaXa ip88kily thrWgh
Judg8 WhMi8P, 8aid 118 rOiiOW8:
'A 8ub88qUOnt 8tatUtO HV181~ th8
8ubject mettAr of a former on8, and evidsnt-
ly lntsnded a8 a 8ubstituts tor it, although
it ~0~1tam n0 expr486 WONTS to that dreot,
nurt opsr ta to repeal the formsr to ths 8x-
tent to w'~ioh it8 ?rov181On8 9~3: revlred and
su~plement8d. So thcugh a aubeequent 8tat-
utr be not re>ugmnt ln its provision to a
for18sr one, yet it it was clearly intsnd8d to
prsrcribs the only rule whioh should govern,
it rsjmal8d the prior statute**
The Court in the Firat National Bank oaso al80 quoted
frtm the language of the case of Stuts v. Howton oil COlUU1881On
0r ~02a8, 194, s. 8. 4321
“The rule 18 well 8Ctthd that, wh8n 8
8Ub88qUsht statute 8hOw8 by it8 OOuteXt that
it wa8 intended to eimbraoe all the law upon
tha rubJ8ot dealt with, 8uOh 8tatUta will,
by irpllo+tlon, ~881 all rormrr lawn N-
lettIlt to the 8-0 8ubjeOt. The OOrrsOtM88
Oi that rub 18 not contrarerted, and it 18
UQneOeB8ary to Cite authWitie8 in 8UppOrt
or it,-
The Roger8 and the St. Louis Railway 011808 word both
aited and followed in the ca88 of Stats V. Tesa8 & N. 0. R. Com-
pany, wra e
The S?;prems Court Of Tesa8 first rxprs88ed 1t88lf on
ttir mattsr in 1049 in the oa8e of Bryan v. Sunberg In an opinion
written bg Judge :;heslsr. Ths Court said a8 follows;
-But when the new 8tatUtO ifI it8eli OOm-.
prehend8 the entire 8ubjeot and orsater a n8w,
entlro, and independ8nt eystua re8peOting th8
aubjsot matter, it ir UniVsrMlly held to r8-
pot&l and 8UjJ8r8ed8dall plWiOU8 8ybta8 and
Honorable H. E. Yancy, Pagr 7
law8 r88pecting thr ram8 8UbjrCt Mtt8E."
It ir the opinion of thlr DepaABent that; a8 to
mOtOr VCSh101t38,th8 irgi8htUre ha8 nDx‘88t Up a new 8y8t8m
OS law for the proteotion oi innooent pUrOha88r8 and lirn
holderr. TlAi88Jlt8m i8 80 C?OrPpletOin it8elf n8 t0 8UpOr-
88d8 the operation8 of the general recording 8tBtUt88 U8 to
motor V8k~10108.
In the Sedond place it I8 the opinion ot thi8 De-
partment that tiou8a Bill No. tO7 repeal8 the operation or th8
genema moording etatutas a8 tc mctor vsl:Iclee because it
oontllct8 with them.
Pihere there 18 a 'general statute in foroe and' then
a speolilc atatute peased, both statutes
is rsmaln in foroe
excf?pt that the seoond 8upW8edeI3 the first a8 to the 8ubject
'matter contained In said special 8t3tUte. Fortinberzy v. State,
mpra, and Towsend I. Terrell, 16 S. W. 1063, An examlnetlon
of the pertinent provl8ion8 of HoUSe ill1 No. 401 lead8 one to
the inevitable conclurion th..t said Act 18 in coniliot with th8
general recording at tUt88 a8 t0 motor vehicles. This may b8
clearly been from an examination of the effect oi Hou8e Bill
Ho. 407 upon the three major legal meulta oi the general re-
cordln atatutea as 8et out previouely in thl8 opinion:
In the flret place under the general reaording stat-
ute8 nt lien ia valid against a rubsequent purobe8er and mort-
g&e8 or lien holder In good ialtb Wiles8 the 83~13 is recorded.
Hou8a Bill X0, 407 contains ihe iollowingprovl8lon8 concern-
ing the validity of llenr:
*sec.. 41. No lien shall be valid on
any motor vehicle wi.lch 18 hersatter th8
rrubject of 8 firet sale, or be enforceabl8
against any such motor vetiol~ UnlO88 there
is noted on the importer's or manufacturer*s
oertlfloate the d&t>;, n3me, and a&rose of'
the mortgagees who8e rights arise out of or
are incident to suah ff.r8t sale by rG38vn of
the exrcutlon of an., wrlttarr instrument by
the tran8fere8.
Qeo. 42. No lien on any motor VhhiCla
shnll be valid as adalnat t&@&part188 with-
out aotual ktlowledge thereof or eniOrCeabl8
Honorabla w. t. Yanoy, Page 8
a&art the motor vahIola of any 8uch
third pert148 a8 th8 i88UanOs Of a QaC-
tlfloata OS title th8raof, unlasa an ap-
plloatlon for a new tltla I8 mad
8crlbad ln thi8 Act and all fir x '::d*;$&,w .,"
quant llanr noted by thi8 Dapnrtmanttharaon~
'Sa0. 44. No llan on any rpotor vahloti
to wkloh a raoaipt or cartitioata of tit18
has been i88U4d ehall be salld 8s aginrt
third part108 without actual knowledge thar8-
of, or anforcsablr egalnst the motor vahiola
of any such third Farties, unlaas the notation
of said lien 8hfill Lave bean caused to be made
VA receipt8 an6 cartlflCete8 Of title sn said
motor var.icla, as 2povldad in.thi8 hot*
"Sac* 46. iIn13liens noted on a racolpt
or certificate of title shall be velld as a-
geln8t creditors of the mortgagor in so far a8
concerns the motor vahlcla,W
Tba affect of the84 s4Ct.i.A8 18 thbt if the lien8 are
not recorded on the cartifioata Of title the same are not valid
da8:jita the faot that they msy bo recorded in the county Clerk’8
Of iiO8. Also, under Section 46, if tha lien le,notad on the
cartiflcatd of title, said llan la valid despite the fact that
the 8eim.mfq not be racordad.in:.tha county olark*s offloe. 30
the law 18 now that the raoordatlon of alien la immaterial to
it8 valldlty. Suoh validity depends entirely u on whether the
88ma 18 properly nqted upon the OertIfIoata of c:itla. In th18
raspaot, LicusaBill No. 407 end the general racordlng 8tatutar
ar-: entirely in oonflI0t~
Secondly, under thp general raoordlng rtatutes the
recording of a chattel mOrtgsg* in the county 019rk's offioa
constftutas constructive notlca to the public. The operation
of this law 1s com;.Jately done away with,'by SaOtiOn8 33 and 51
of Hvusa Bill Ko. 401 w:~lah read as followlrr
%380. 33. No motor vM.lcle msy be
diOpo8ad of at rubrraquant sale UAl48s the
owner dasl(;netad iA the cartlfloata OS
title shall tr:.nsfer the cartlfloata of
title on form to be pr.8oribad by the Da-
psrtmont before a Notary i-ublla, whloh
Honorable w. E. Tanor, Pa50 9
fo r l
mhall'lnol~de, amon luoh other
mtterr a8 the D0p,eeent may determine,
en eftidevlt to the erieat that tha
llgner ie thr omrr of the motor vehlole,
and that there are no 110ne a & a b et luoh
motor vehlel0 exoopt ruoh a8 are ehown
on the 00rtirf08t0 of title and no title
to any motor vrhiolo lhall pare or vest
until luch trenrfor be so ex0outed.
"860. 61. It 8Mll hersaftrr be un-
lawful ror any perron; qlther by hiae0lr
or through any agent, to offer for ealr
or to sell or ~to offer as l0our1ty for
any obllgatlon any mctoz i&i010 regietsr-
ed or licensed In thI8 State without then
and there having In hi8 po8aeaeion tha
proper raoelpt or osrtitIcets of title
ooverlng the motor .*ehIclo 80 ~ffsred.~
It mayaleo bs pointed out that. the oaptlon of Hour0
Bill No. 4O7 contains the following; language:
-ProvIdi thet ruch'oertiiiiate shall
conetftut0 not7 00 of ruch llene and mort-
gagee, and prescribing the priorltles OS
liens and mort*508 as againat all partIe8.a
Furthormor0 lien8 which are r0oorded In ths oounty
olerk'r orflae sitar 6otober lrt cannot 8orv0 a8 oonetruatlvr
not100 becauer oi Sootlone 48 and 44 of raid Aot, above quoted,
ubloh etate that eald lien8 are not valid unleea noted on tho
ee.rtIfIoate of title. IS raid 110~ at0 not valid they oannot
earn es notlo,. So In thI8 rslpeot the 50n0ral recording etat-
utes are in oonfliot with Houee :I11 No, 4O7.
Thr Third legal reaillt or the gsnsral reoordlng rtat-
utes, the ertsbllshmsnt of priority of llane, has bean sntlrrly
supareedrd by House Bill No, 407 a8 to motor vshIole8. Under
the general reoordlng 8tatut.w the priority o? 110~ I8 determin-
w Q..,tha data thoes liens wars fIlsd,for rsoordation In thr
obmty olnrk'r ofilcs. Seotion 45 of Hours Bill No, 407 raedr
ae iollow0r
*All lien8 on motor VrS.ioler shall take
prloritr according to the or&r of tls0 th0
same are recorded on the reoelpt or oerti-
floeto of tit10 of all ruoh r0oordlnge to
Honorable v. 5. Yanoy, Page 10
be made by the Departaant.*
80 we rind the lm now that the prlorlty of lien.
In dateraina(; by the order of the tiaa the 8ema era reoordad
on tha.raoaipt o? oartifloata of tltla. Of naoa8elty thin
deetroy thi priority 88 rat up by the goner.1 raoordlng
lta tutee 88 to rotor vehlola8~
It 18 our opinion therefore, that the provlalon8
o? xouea BIll~No. 4Q7 &ra 4fraOtly in oonfllot with the gan-
era1 reoordingsetatutae lnd.aa to motor vahicla8 must o? neo-
sealty euper8a6e auoh Caneral recordIn law8.
It in the opinion of ttlr Department that it will
not be naoaeaary to raoord a lien on a motor vat;lcla In the
county clerk*8 0rrl00 artar the affeotlva data 0r xouea Bill
No. 407 for the third reason that the operation OS House Bill
Noa 407 suepande the U8.fUln.88 of the ganaral reoordltq law8
because of the term In Article 6490 "In good faith.* The COUX't#
here oonetruad ttle term in meny carea and have held thet certain
f&Ot# Pay .Xi#t which make a 8Ub8.qU.at pUr0h.a.r or . rubs.-
quent lien holder not one in good faith. A very good statement
en to whet Is meant by the term "good faith" a. urad in the ra-
cording atetutaa wee made bjr the court in the ceaa of Burlington
State Bank, at al,, v. Marlin .National Benk, et .I., 166 8. W.
499:
*The exprareIon *good Salthe em wed
,ln the statute providing that a ahattel
mortgagn ehall oeaaa to be valid a5eIn.t
,tha oredltore oi the pereon making the
811118or uortg5.88 in good faith e?ter the
arplratlon of one yasr rrou iillng the
name unlearn en lr?ldevlt of reneral In
fIlad,~~la lynonymoua with ~ooa8olenoa~,
It ambfaeae thoea oblI5etlone which are
Impoeed u?on one in dealing with property
by the cIrcumetanoa8 eurroundlng It at tha
tine*
WAwant of that oautlon and dlll5enoa
w!.loh an ordinary man op. ordlne~ prudsnoa
In aoouetoaad to axarclae In meklng gur-
oherar 18, in judslqent of law; a want or
good faith."
See al80 South Tax.8 Emplamant k M.OLfn.ry Co., et al.
Honorable W. l5. Yencr, R&a 11
.~
v. Aeahuao Gene1 Co., t69 8. w..lO97, arrInad by the Comnle-
alon or Appule in UO 9. Vi. beli Tlrrt Ilational. Bank of Steven-
villa v. Tho~peoe, at el., 888 S. W. 0S4,
Vndar Hour6 El11 Ho, 407 before l motor vahIole may
be offered for ula o? offered the owner of the
fo r la o ur lty,
mama runt obtain a oartlfioate of title. Toot any lien to be
valid and prior to a eubeaquant lien the eama would have to be
notad on raid oartlfloata of title. Let ue 8uppoea l lltuetlon
where e parbon Wieha8 to puroha86 e ubad aer from another o?
rimhem to take 8 lien eelnat bald oar* In oaaa 0s 8 purohaea
it would bs naoeeeary ror l trenefar 0r maid oartIflcata or tIClo
to be mador In a oaaa where ha wI8haa to obtain a lien upon said
oar, aald lien would have to be no.ted on the oartIfIoata of tltla
end ha would have the opportunity to axamIne th:! mama to mea If
there ware any prior llenr noted thereon. Ha knowe thzlt a lien
not noted thereon 18 not valid a8 a&net him. Suppoae, however,
there axIete a valid lien against the oar and the mama In noted
on bald oertIfIoata of title but hem not bean racordad. In the
flret plaoe thin oartlflcata of title would be construotlva
~notIoe to & auoh a8 to keep him frou being e 8ub8equant mort-
magma In &ad fait:! un-Zar Xrtlola 5490. In the laoond place,
even If It oould be meld thnt the oertIfloate of title war not
oonetructlva notice to him. still tha oeaas would indicate that
ha oartalnly, could not be a &ood faith purchaser or mort~agea
having had opportunity to aremIne raid certIflcate of title
wl.loh would ooma in him po88aeeIon. By this line of raeeonin&
we reach the oonclurlon that lf a lien Is cot noted on the oertl-
floeta or title it cannot be 8-t up against aUb8~iqUant purchaear
or nort~aagae. If raid lien 18 noted on the oertlflcate OS title
'than there oonld be no good faith ~uroharar under Artiola 5490.
In this we7 the entire affaot and operation of the reoordlng
atatutaa a8 to motor vahicle8 ia oblltaratad~
For the raaeon8 di8ou88ad in amwar to your firet in-
quiry, it in the opinion of ttia Department that it i8 uenacee8ary
for a lien to be recorded In the offloe of tile oounty' olark.
Nothing In thla opleio~, however, rhould be taken to mean that
llane oreetad and fIlad for records prior to Ootober 1, 1939, are
not valid.
The oonnlualon ire have raaohad in construing our Texas
ltotutea In lImllar to the oonoluelon reeohad by the oourte of ‘
other etatee in oonatrulng their Certiflcata Of Title Acta, The
following quotation by the Supreme Court of Appeal8 of Vlrglnie
In ths oaaa of C. I. T. Corporation v. Quy, et al., 195 9. IL 659,
Honorable W. I. YAMr, Page 16
la dlraotly in points
“In lddltltinto the lta tutee
no ted
the Motor VahIola Coda of Vlr&ia alro
doe18 with thle 8ubJeot. AOtb 19SS 0.
Sit, pa 61Si hot8 1934, o+ 868, p* 580,
Within it8 dafInltlon, a oonditlonel
eel8 18 en lnouabrenoe. Pladmont ato.,
Corp. v. Com!nonwaalth, 146 Ve. 2&; 135
8. r. 678, Re~IetretIon card8 end oartl-
floatae of title era leruad by the Dlvlelon
of Motor VehIclae. They and the llene thera-
on appearlag are aurrloIant notice to oradl-
tore end ~urchaeere and do not herb to be
recorded locally,*
The Faderal DI8trIot Court, Eartarn DletrIct, Penn-
aylvenIe, in the oaea o? In ra Tall 16 Fad. Supp. 987, held
the Penneylvenia CartifIcate of Tltfa Aot to be a recording
8tatutar
Sea elao the canes of Tnfleld v. Butler, at al.,
264 N. PI. 546, S~~pramaCourt of Iowe, and Mrylend Credit
Finance Corporation v. Frenkltn Credit FIneno Corporation, at
al,, 180 8. B. 408, Supreme Court of Appaalr of Virginia.
Xhlla it 18 the opinion 0s thin Department that It
18 unneoa8eary to record ohettal aort~agee on motor vahlolae
In thaw oountr olerk’e office, In all probabilitymany pareone
who take aortggae againat motor vshlolae wilLuleh to reoord
their 116M in the OOunty alark~8 Off106 an a eat&r Of praoau-
tlon. TO18 will probably be true until the oourta of thla State
daolda whether or not 8UOh raoordatlon 18 na~eaeary. In much a
oaaa you era advlaed thqt the oounty clerk 8houl. record the
mortgsga en hen bean haratOfor6 done, and the 8ame oherge a8
wall em 1 he mama lteuup tax 8,hould be a880880d againat the party
wiehlng e mortgage racordad~
Yours .vaty truly
ATWBNXI 0BRER.G OF TBUS
ASWiOVEDNOVEMBER 7, 19S9
(a) Oereld C. Menn
ATTORNEY O:~ERbU OF TKUS BY
(a) Billy Goldberg
Ba:R8: lw A.#i#tMt
APROVED OPINION COW’ITTISERY (8) B. W. ‘B., CHAIF@IAX