Honorable &u-y Ssbesta

County Attorney. Bastrop County Aastrop,Texas
Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-6229 Re: Cattle brands;would a brand suah as "C on the righthip and X on the right shoulder" be construed88 two separate brands, or as one and the same brand?
Your letter of recent date requesting our opinion on the above question has been aonsidered.

Article 6890, Vernon'sAnnotated Civil Statutes, reads as follows* "Every personwho has cattle,hogs, sheep or goats shallhave an ear mark and brand differing from the ear mark and brand of his neighbors,which earmark and brand shall be recordedby the county clerk of the countywhere such animals shall be. No person shalluse more than one brand, butmay record his brand in a8 many counties as he deems, necessary.' Article 1484 of the Penal Code of this State is as follower "Whoever in originallybranding ormarking cattle usesmore than one mark or brand shall be fined not less than twenty-fivenor more than one hundred dollars for each animal so branded ormarked." Artials 1466 of the Penal Code provides8 "Any county clerkwho shall record any brand when the person having the same recorded fails to designate the part of the animal upon whioh the same is to be placed shall be finednot less than ten nor more than fifty dollars."
In our Opinion No. O-5678, we said in parts "The last quoted article (Article 1466, P.C., supra) is an extraction from the 4ot of March 23, 1874, (Gen. Laws, 14th Leg., p. 45, sec. 42). Sea. 20 of this Aat requiredHonorable Henry Sebesta,page 2 O-6229

the party having a brand recorded to designate the part of the animal upon which the brand would be placed. Althoughthis sectionwas omittedwhen the statuteswere revised, the courtshave held that it is plain, from readingArt. 1486, supra, that the record of a brand to be legal, the recordermust designate the part of the animal upon which the brand is to be placed. hamel ~8. State, z S.W. 606. The court in the case of Reesevs. State, 43 Tex. Cr. R. 539, 67 S.M. 325, sustainedthe contentionthat a recorded brand designated as a figure either on the hip or side of animalviolated our penal statutesprovidinGhat Gperson shallhave more than one brand and providing an offense for any county clerk to record any brand unless the part of the animalupon which the same is to be placed is designated. Accord: Steedvs. Stats, 43 Tex. Cr. R. 567, 67 S.W. 330. In the light of these cases,we agreewith the court in Preismuthvs. State, 1 Tex. Ct. of Civ.App. R. 580, where it stated that the law seems to make the partiaularportion of the animal upon which the brand is to be placed equally as improtantas the letters or charactersused in the brand itself. "These authorities in effect hold that a figure located on differentports of an animal's body is not a brand that can be properly recorded in accordancewith the provisions of ourmarks and brands statutes. Further, that such a recordation is inviolation of our penal statutes, one of which is that no person shall have in usemore than one brand. In otherwords, the same figure at different locations on the animal'sbody is not one brand but several - brands.
...!' If the same figure or symbol located on different parts of an animal's body isnota brand that can be properly recorded, it is our opinion that different figures or symbolsplaced on differentparts of the body would likewise.and for a stronger reason, be consideredtwo different brands.

Ke thereforehold in answer to your specific question that ifmore than one figure or character is used in a brand, the figures or charactersused shouldbe on the same portion of the animal's body. Therefore such a brand as "C on the right hip and X on the right shoulder" would be consideredtwo separatebrands.

BK:db:wc Yoursvery truly ATTORWY GENERAL OF TUAS
APPROWD OCT. 4, 1944 s/Grover Sellers By s/BenjaminWoodall j~TTOl7Nk.Y

GEl'rUL OF TEXAS Ben jamin Moodall Approved Opinion Committee Ey s/SW8 Chairman Assistant