OFFICE OF THE A-ITORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Honorable.Alex Jung
County Attorney
Ollleepie County
Fredericksburg, Texas
Dear ~Slrr
the applicable stat-
llouL.ng questions:
the tiaoM5 do'not'iWa~i3~o~em tattoo mark
or bra+ 'to h$ve, been regi+ered.)
*JJndel?
t~'&&ri~~otis'of the Statutea
the owner 'appear8 to be prohIbIted from re-
cording more than one brand in the county of
Honorable Alex Jung, Page 2
his rssi&eace, etc. Onder these provisions,
could 8 tattoo mark OP brand in the ear (such
tattoo mark being different but similar to the
firebrand theretofore registered) be reoorded?
If so, would the re~etratlon of such tattoo
mark or bnrnd proteat the reg:istrazM
"X8 it pem&ssibls fog the registered owaer
of a l’lrabmad to &an&on aams a&d substl0ute
a crlmllazr or diffwent tattoo mark or braadi
ther8iolQt"
%31e a~Sfoabls statutee, to WhLah you refer ia yo,ur
lsttsr, firsA.rtMles 6890 and 6898, Revised Givll S$&tuims of
Texas, 1925, uhieh recrdas followsr
As tW, poln$~ tit, mNfliatur 40 +ot pre8otibe the
nwumr iii whicwthe~~ 8ar marka aac. made ehe3.l be plaoed
upoa the hIllml*. rphe purpose of ewh 8ar marks aad braads
and of the @tatuiiW FoguLa~~~fhs u8e~themaoP is to provide
a penaanant aad positive m3s.m of l.dentlflcatfon ~aad proof of
owner*lilpal the urnala. We believe t&at a~tattoo mark, if
applied %a a mtkaer se as to'provi&e- a~posltlve and permaaeat
mesas 0f:ideatifiuatfea wfl.l fW.fili the purpose of the stat-
utes and ooneequeat,lylaay be maaqrded $al%ke smaaer as other
ear &WkS or bramda.
Iionorable Alex Jung, Page 3
In connection uith your second question ve wish to
call attention to the rule announced in our Opinion Eo. O-1104,
copy of which la enclosed heretith -- that the place on the
s.rA~~l'sbody on vhich a brand ia used is as much a part and
designation of the brand as the design of the brand itself.
Consequently, we believe that should the ovner of a registered
firebrand, which has been used on the right shoulder of the
animal, desire to use the same design or symbol as a tattoo
ear mark, it would be neaesoary for him to record suah tattoo
earmark fs the office of the ,oountg clerk in order to receive
the prote~tlon of ~the above quoted statutes thereon.
In reply to your third question,it is our opinion
that the couixtg alerk
should* upon application, reoorcl a tat-
too mark In the same manner as au ear-clip-mark or Pirebraud;
As W8 construe Avtlcle 6890, a person may register
one ear mark and also may register one brand. The two need
not be ldentioal. See Dugat v. State, 148 S. X. 789.
Replying to your fifth question, we are of the opinion
that the owhev of a registered firebrand may at ang time change
the s8me by filirig a new brand with the couutg clerk.
Xn uonn&3tlon with
the Por8gol.ng, we wish to poiut
out that any brands, ear aarka, flesh marks or any dlstlnguish-
lug charaoteristlcs of an animal are admissible in evidence re-
gardless of registration to prove the identity of the animal.
The general miles mlatlng to brands are set out in Texas Jurls-
prudeaae .
39 fl!ex.
Jur. 324 -- “* * l an wm8oorded
brand w&a admfssible fop the puqoeo of prov-
ing the identity of an.lmls, if owner-p with
that brand was otherwise ppovea by any proper
teatway.
“A re601-U of a brand that eompllee with
th8 law is evidence of the wriership of stook."
2 Tex.JuF. 909 -- "Under the general rule5
of evidence the faat that ah anlxml is branded
with a crertain brand and that a named person
is the owner of that brand, 15 admissible in
evidence. It does not require a statute to
de brands and marks admlsaible in evidence
-- the are SO b8 virtue of the ml85 govern-
Fng ev 9 deme -- aud are lntrinsioally proof
Ronorable Alex Jung, P&~&e 4
of owxlersNp. I’
We trust that the foregoiJ3g satisfactorily answerr
your several questions.
Yours v6ry truly