. - 

OEiiALD C. MANN 

Attorney General 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNFX GLNERAL 

Honorable L, R. Thompson 

County Auditor 

Taylor County 

Abllens, Texas 

Dear Sir3 Opinion No. O-2535 

Ret Can the described 

deliveries be made by 

the truok without heving 

It registered In Texas? 

:!;e have received your recent request for the opinion of this Department 

upon the above stated question. For fsctuel background of your request, 

we quote from your letter as followrl 

"A men living In Texhs end his brother living In Arizona are operating 

under a trade name In Arizona, and are delivering fruit Into Texhs by 

truck whioh Is registered under en Arisone license. 

"The oucstion arises: 

"C&n such deliveries be made by this truck without having it registered 

in Texas? 

"The Arizona concern IQ a partnership, wholesale dealers In fruit end 

vegatables. 

"The truck does not make scheduled trips to Texas, but makes from one 

to four trips per month dslivsrlng fruit end vegetables to their diatrlbuting warehouse In Texas, from khlch place It is redistributed by 

Texas registered truoka tao other pointa." 

The registrntlon and licensing laws respectins motor vehiolss are shown 

by the various sections of Article bh75e, Vernon's Civil Jtetutes. 

Sections 6, ba, 7 end 8 heve'specifia epplicetlon to commerolel motor 

vehicles, truok-trnotors and trailers or semi-trailers. Examination of 

these sections reveals no exception under which the owne!' or operator 

of e truck line Is permitted to operate e truck, truok-treotor or 

trailer witriout first licensing same under theprovisions of the laws 

of Texas relating thereto. 

Article 667sa-2 provides, Inpert: 

"Every owner of e motor vehicle, trailer or sesi-trailer used or to be 

used upon the public highways of this state, and er;ch chauffeur, shall 

apply each year to the Stete Highway Department through the aounty tax 

collector of the oounty in whiah he resldss for the registration of 

each such vehlole oained or controlled by him, . . .v 
Honorable L. R. Thompson, Page 2, O-2535 

Section (L) of said Article bb75e-l-defines the term 'owner" PI) followsr 

'(L) (Owner 1 means any person who holds the legal title of a vehicle or 

who has the legelrlght of possession tnereof, or the legal right of 

oontrol of said vehicle," 

We are assuming that the partners In the instant case have a community 

of interest as common owners of the property enge-jed In the business. 

The first question w+ioh arises Is whether or not the vehicle In question 

Is exoepted from the general registration laws by Article 827b of the 

Penal Code, which deals with non-resident owners of motor vehioles. 

Under said Article 827b temporary registration certificates may be obtained 

for out of state vehicles by non-resident owners, 

A "non-resident" Is defined in Section 1 of said Article 827b as follows: 

"'Non-resident' means every resident of e state or country other then 

the State of Texas, whose sojourn In this State, or WIOOSS occupation, 

or place of abode, or business In thin State, if any, covers a total 

period of not more than one hundred earl twenty-five days in the calendar 

year." 

The courts of this State do not recognize a partnershlp aa a legal entity. 

The Co.mmlsslon of A.c,peals of Texas, In thee ase of Martin vs. fiemphill, 

237 6.U. 5.50, speeklng through Justice Powell stated; 

" 

. . . A partnership, at comrOon law, 1s not e legal entity, but only '8 

eontrsatuel status." 

The commission of Appeals of Texas held that tha common law rule 

applied in Texas In the aase of Allison vs. Campbell, 1 S.W. (26) 866. 

The court stated es follows~ 

II . 

SC&S. 

A partnership at oomnon law 1s not e legal entity but e contractual 

Martin vs. Bemphill (Tex. Corn. App.) 237 Y. b. 550, 20 A.L.R. 

984; Marshall V. Bennett, 214 Ky. 328, 283 S. vi. 1151 Schumaker on 

Partnerships (2d. Ed.) p. 2. Texeo has no statute regulating general 

partnerships, in the absence of whioh the rules of common law govern the 

oourts In dealing with the question of general partnerslips." 

TheFort Xorth Court of Civil Appeals In the case of Beggs v. Brooker, 

79 9.3. (26) 6/+2, steted as followsr 

"A partnersnip has no legal entity. It exists only as Its individual 

membe's exist." 

The Federal District Court for the 7th District of Ohio In the case of 

E. 1. Depont De Nemours Powder Co. v. Jones Bras., 200 Fed. Rep. 638, 

stated es follows: 

"Residence cannot be predicated of a partnership.' 
. 

fionorable L. R. Thompson, Pam 3. O-2535 

The Supreme Court of Ohio 

117, etsted aa follows: 

in the %aae of Byera va. schlupe, 38 Ii. E. 

“A partnerkhlp is not, in our judgment, a lc~,al ertltp, having, aa 

such, a domicile or resldenoe separate and dlatlnot from that of the 

lndlvfcuals who constitute It." 

The above holding of the Ohio court8 Is the law in this atate, because 

said case8 are predloated upon the idea that a partnership is not a 

aeparete la-al entity aside and dletlnct from the Individual partners. 

Therefore, the residenoe of a partnership must be oonsldared the same 

aa that of the individuals oomprlslng the partnership. It follows 

that the >artnershIp in question, by vfrtue of one of Its mem'tere being 

a resident of this btate, Is a domeatlo gartnershlp and as such Is a 

resident of the Stete of Texas. The fsot that one of the partnera 

resides In Arizona, an3 though the Arizona Laws may construe this 

partnership a resident of that state, the partnership, nevertheless, 

Is a resldsnt of Texsa under the Motor Vohlcle Reglstratlon Law. 

Under the foregoing authoritfes, you are reapeotfully advised that 

it 1s the opinion of thlr Department that Article 827b of the Yenal 

Code would have no a?plIcatIon to the vehicle in question and that 

the vehicle should be registered In Texas under our general 

reglatered In Texas under our general registration laws. 

Truetlng that this aatlsfaotorily disposes of y'3ur inquiry, we remain 

Yours very truly 

ATTORIUKY OtlWiAL OF TlXAS 

a/ D. Burla iravIae 

DBDzBIE/og 

.BY 

D, Burle DavIsr 

Aaalatant 

APYROVE~ ;NLY 29, 1440 

Olenn R. Lsrlr 

AT'I'ORhTEY CILNZRAL 3F TEXAS 

Approved Opinion- Committee 

By BS3, Chairman