x3 GENERAL 

June 17, 1970 

Hon. Joe Resweber 

County Attorney 

Opinion No. M- 650 

Harris County Courthouse Re: Whether the Sheriff of 

Houston, Texas 77002 Harris County is authorized 

to seize goats running at 

Dear Mr. Resweber: large, and related questions. 

Your recent letter requesting the opinion of this 

office concerning the referenced matter states, in part, 

as follows: 

" 1 . Is the Sheriff of Harris County 

authorized to seize goats running at large? 

” 2 . If the answer to the first question 

is in the affirmative, what procedure should 

the Sheriff follow to dispose of such goats? 

“3. If the answer to the first question 

is in the affirmative, what impounding fee, 

if any, may the Sheriff charge for such goats?" 

The materials annexed to the memorandum brief submitted with your letter indicate that two stock law elections 

were held in Harris County in 1932: in one, the voters prohibited the running at large of hogs, sheep, and goats. In 

the other, the voters prohibited the running at large of 

horses, mules, jacks, jennets, and cattle. 

Article 6930 et seq. of Chapter 5, Title 121, 

Vernon's Civil Statutes, as amended, set forth a procedure 

whereby county voters may determine whether horses, mules, 

jacks, jennets, donkeys, hogs, sheep, or goats shall be 

permitted to run at large in a county. 

-3114- 
Ron. Joe Resweber, page 2 (M-650) 

Articles 6954 et seq. of Chapter 6 of this Title 

121, as amended, set forth a similar procedure that relates 

only to cattle, and to no other type of animal. 

The only statutory authorization for a sheriff's 

seizing stock running at large is found in Article 6965 of 

Chapter 6 of this Title 121. That Article provides, in 

part, as follows: 

"It shall be the duty of any sheriff or 

constable of any county, or subdivision thereof, 

within this State, where the nrwisions of this 

Chanter are or mav hereafter become operative, 

to seize any stockwhich may become known to 

him to be running at large on any outside 

premises where the provisions of the stock 

law are in force, and impound the same in some 

place provided for that purpose, and immediately 

notify the owner thereof, and if such Owner is 

known to such officer, who may redeem the same 

on the payment of an impounding fee of One Dollar 

($1) per head, and the following additional fee 

for each day such stock is SO kept: One Dollar 

($1) pes day per head for horses, mules, and 

cattle; fifty cents (5Oc) per day per head for 

jacks and jennets; and twenty-five cents (25C) 

per day per head for sheep, goats, and swine 

*..Dse0 " (Rmphasis added.) 

In our opinion, Article 6965, supra, imposes 

the duty upon a sheriff to seize and impound the stock 

named in Chapter 6, Title 121, Vernon's Civil Statutes, 

and in addition all the other stock named in Chapter 5, 

of that Title, by reason of the two independent provisions of that Article which are underscored in the 

immediately preceding quoted portion thereof. The second 

provision, "where the provisions of the stock law are in 

force" imposes a separate and additional duty in addition to 

-3115- 
. 

Hon. Joe Resweber, Page 3 (M-650) 

the duty imposed by the preceding provision which refers to 

"this Chapter". This is manifestly the intent of the Legislature because the Article specifically provides fees for 

impounding the other animals named in Chapter 5, in addition 

to cattle named in Chapter 6. 

We are of the opinion that the following statement is apposite to the instant matter: 

“A statute will be construed in such a 

manner as to make it effective, that is, enforceable and operative, if it is fairly susceptible of such an interpretation. Thus, 

where two constructions might reasonably be 

given a statute, of which one will effectuate 

the legislative intent and purpose and make 

the act operative, whereas the other will 

defeat that intent and purpose and render it 

inoperative, the former construction will be 

so interpreted as to secure the benefits intended and as will best effect the legislative 

purpose." 53 Tex.Jr.2d 223-2.5, Statutes, 

$157. 

It should bs noted that the Legislature, while 

seemingly restricting the operation of Article 6965, supra. 

to Chapter 6 of Title 121, Vernon's Civil Statutes, did set 

forth in that Article specific impounding fees for types of 

animals covered by both Chapters 5 and 6 of Title 121, 

Vernon's Civil Statutes. In addition, goats are mentioned 

specifically in Article 6967, which is also found in Chapter 

6 of Title 121, Vernon's Civil Statutes. 

In this connection, it has been said that: 

"Another fundamental rule requires that 

a statute be construed as a whole and that 

all of its parts be harmonized if possible, 

so as to give effect to the entire act according 

to the evident intention of the legislature. 

-3116- 
Ron. Joe Resweber, page 4 (M-650) 

. . . (T)he Court will endeavor to reconcile 

the various provisions of the act, insofar 

as they may appear to be conflicting or inconsistent, to the end that the enactment and 

every word, phrase, clause, and sentence may 

have its proper effect. 

"Each part of the statute is to be considered in connection with every other part 

and with the entire enactment, in order to 

produce a harmonious whole and to reach the 

true legislative intent. Thus, in case of 

doubt as to the meaning of a particular word, 

clause, provision, or section, it is to be 

viewed in the light of all the language employed. It follws that a provision will 

not be given a meaning out of harmony with 

other provisions and inconsistent with the 

purpose of the act, although it would be 

susceptible of such construction standing 

alone." 53 Tex.Jur.2d 229-32, Statutes, 

Sec.160. 

See, generally, 53 Tex.Jur.2d 280-04, Statutes.Sec. 

186, relating to the construction of statutes in mri 

materia. 

Even if we had not given Article 6965, supra, the 

foregoing construction, we believe the Sheriff of Harris 

County would, nonetheless, have the power to seize goats 

running at large, since the provisions of Chapter 6 of 

Title 121, Vernon's Civil Statutes, were enacted and made 

operative by the voters in the 1932 election that prohibited 

the running at large of cattle in that county. 

For the foregoing reasons, your first question is 

answered in the affirmative. 

-3117- 
. - 

Hon. Joe Resweber, page'5 (M-650) 

In answer to your second question, it is our 

opinion that the procedure to be followed by the Sheriff 

in disposing of goats running at large is set forth in 

Articles 6965, 6969, and 6970, Vernon's Civil Statutes. 

See also Attorney General's Opinion No. S-01 (1953), 

which authorizes a county to lease land and build pens 

necessary to impound livestock seized by a sheriff pursuant to Article 6965, supra. 

In answer to your third question, the impounding 

fee that may be charged for such goats by the Sheriff is 

$1 per head, plus an additional fee of 250r.per head for 

each day such goats remain impounded, as provided in 

Article 6965, supra. 

(1) The Sheriff of Harris County is 

authorized to seize goats running at large in 

that county, pursuant to Article 6965, Vernon's 

Civil Statutes. 

(2) The procedure the Sheriff would 

follw in disposing of such goats is set forth 

in Articles 6965, 6969, and 6970,'Vernon's 

Civil Statutes: and 

(3) The impounding fee to be charged for 

such goats by the Sheriff is $1 per head, plus 

an additional fee of 250 per head for each day 

such goats remain impounded, ursuant 

.s 

to Article 

6965, Vernon's Civil Statutes. 

/' 

General of Texas 

Prepared by Austin C. Bray, Jr. 

hSSiStant Attorney General 

-3118- 
. . 

Hon. Joe Resweber, page 6 (M-650) 

APPROVED% 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Kerns Taylor Chairman 

W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman 

Bob Lattimore 

Charles Parrett 

Malcolm Quick 

Jerry Roberts 

MBADE F. GRIFFIN 

Staff Legal Assistant 

ALFRBDWALKBR 

Executive Assistant 

NOLAWHITB 

First Assistant 

-3119-