J -- 

AUSTIN 1,. TEXAH 

WILL WILSON 

ATFORNEYGIIENEPAI. 

May 14, 1957. 

Honorable Frank D. McCown, Opinion No. WW-80 

District Attorney, 

69th Judicial District, Re: Constructfon of Condit316 Denrock Avenue, ional Sales Contract and 

Dalhart, Texas. partfcularly in regard 

to whether or not such 

is In the nature of a 

Chattel Mortgage acd 

Dear Mr. McCown: related questions. 

We arc fn receipt of your opinron request and the 

very helpful brief which you fomarded to us in connect!.on 

therewfth. We quote from your request as fallows: 

"A Seller sells a washing maehPr;e, 

delivers posse,ssion to the vendee and takes 

a conditional sales contract whereby the 

seller retafns the title to the property 

until the entire unpaid balance fs paid. It 

is entered into as a two party agreement 

and does not purport to be a chattel mortgage D The vecd2e t&n sells tkie property 

or removes LL Pr:w the State :jr C%n:ty with 

intent to de?::ac?." 

You pWpound8d the following questions for our ccii:- 

sideration and opfnion: 

"1 D Has the vendee violated the provfsions 

of Artfole 1558 P. C. on fraudulent dlsposition of mortgaged property? 

"2 * If he is not guilty of fraudulent disposLtlon of mortgaged property, is he 

guilty of the offense of conversion by 

bailee? 

“3. If he is not guilty of the offenses set 

out In 1 and 2 above, is he guilty of the 

crime of theft? 

“4 * If he is not. guilty of azy of the offenses 

set out. above, is he guilt7 of any offense?' 
Honorable Prank D, M&own, Page 2 WI?-80 

Article 1558 of the Texas Penal Code provider that 

If any person has given, or shall give any mortgage, deed of 

trust or other lien in writing, upon any personal or movable 

property and thereafter removes the same, or any part thereof, out of the State, OF out of the County in which it was 

located at the time of the creation of the lien* or otherwise disposea of same with intent to defraud the person 

having such lien, he shall be confined In the peaiten%iarg 

for not less than two, nor more than five years D 

The eontract fn question here is captioned “Conditional Sales Contract ” a It provides fn part: 

“Title to safd goods shall remain In 

the Seller and shall not pass to the Buyer 

until all amounts owing hereunder have been 

pafd fn cash by the Buyer.’ 

The Instrument hereunder considered Is properly construed as 

a Conditional Sales Contract a 

You state in substance %ha% the proposed defendant 

purchased the personal property under a en~:!,df%fonal sales 

contract, wherein ft was prrvfded that %he tftle to the property was retained by %he vendor until the safd property was 

paid for fn full; that before ft was fully paid for, the 

purchaser fraudulently removed the property from the county, 

or fraudulently removed 1% from the state, OF frauduSen%ly 

sold ft, 

A~tloYe 5484, Revised Clvll S%atutes, 1925, as 

amended, provfdes that any reservation of title on property 

in chattels as security for the purchase money, “shall be 

held to be chat&e1 mor%gages ew 

It is well settled in Texae that all attempted reservations of t’ftle in a salss note or contract simply make 

the fnatrumant a ahat%el mortgage, and the status of the parties is that of mortgagor and mortga ee, Peterafme Incuba - 

tor Co D vs D BUM 239 S .W e 2d 416> 7 Tex, Civ OApp., 1951) 

381 (Tex, Cfv.App, p 1943) error refused, want of merit O 

In our opinion, the case oi Williams v. State, 118 

Tex. Cr, 386, (Sg3S), 39 S,W,2d 79, held only that a -condftfonal sales eon%ract “is not, OR its face, a chattel aortgag=. 
- 

Honorable Frank D, MCCOWQ, Page 3 ww-80 

Hence, there was a variance between the instrument described 

in the indictment 

dence." The Coup 

a mortgagg and that received In eviwe belfdve, does not hold that one who 

putichases property Ander a conditional sales contract, by 

the terms of which the title to the goods sold remained in 

the vendor until the entire unpaid balance fs paid, and who 

fraudulently disposes of it is not guflty of Fraudulent disposition of mortgaged property under the provisions of 

Article 1558, Texas Penal Code. 

On the basis of the foregoing authorftfes, your 

first questfon la answered In the affirmative. It is, 

Pef Ope9 

unnecessary to consider questi.ons Nos, 2, 3, and 

0 

SUHMARY 

The sale OP removal of personal property 

from the County in which purchased under a 

condftfonal sales contract, wherein title to 

such property sold Femafns fn the vendor until 

the entfre unpaid balance is Pfquidated, with 

fntent to defraud, consti.tutes a vlolatfon of 

the ppov%sions of Article 1558 OS the Texas 

Penal Code relating to fraudulent dfsposltfon 

OS mortgage property, 

Very truly yours, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General 

BRTzpr"srh 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

II, Grady Chandler, Chairman 

Byron Fullerton 

Milton Richardson 

Wagland C, Rfvers 

By 5. k -, 

B. Ii. Tlmmfns, Jr. 

Assistant 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: Gee, P. Blackburn