Mr. L. R. Noyes, Executive Director Opinion No. WW-538 

Livestock Sanitary Commission of Texas 

3320 West Seventh Street Re: Whether or not, in the enFort Worth 7, Texas forcement of Section 26, 

Article 152513, Vernon’s 

Penal Code, the Commission is liable for any death 

loss or shrinkage in weight 

that may occur while livestock are detained for treatment, tests or vaccination, 

Dear Mr. Noyes: and related questions. 

This opinion is written in response to your letter of September 9, 

1958, and your additional letter of September 19 in response to my telephone 

conversation with you of September 18. 

The questions you have asked are as follows: 

“In the enforcement of this provision of the statutes, 

this Commission would like to have an Opinion, whether it 

would be liable for any death loss or shrinkage in weight 

that may occur while livestock are detained for treatment, 

tests or vaccination. 

“In the event the driver of the truck, who is not 

usually the owner of the animals, unloads them and makes 

no arrangements for feed, water and required tests, may 

the Sheriff or any peace officer of the County in which the 

livestock are intercepted impound and levy a lien for the 

purpose of securing payment of expenses and costs of 

handling the animals ? 

“We should also like to know if the Sheriff or Const,able of the County in which the livestock are apprehended 

may impound the animals and levy a lien to cover fines and 

court costs that may be assessed for the violation of our 

requirements.” 
Mr. L. R. Noyes, page 2. (WW-538) 

Since all of these questions pertain to interstate shipments under 

Section 26 of Article 1525b, Vernon’s Penal Code, this Section will be 

quoted in full and your questions answered in their respective order. 

“Quarantine of foreign shipments in violation of act 

“Sec. 26. Whenever any live stock, canines, or fowls 

are moved or permitted to move into the State of Texas in 

violation of any quarantine established under any provision 

of this Act or of any other Live Stock Sanitary Law or in 

violation of any provisions of this Act or of any Live Stock 

Sanitary Law or ar~e moved from any place in the State of 

Texas in violation of any quarantine established under this 

Act, it shall be the duty of the Live Stock Sanitary Commission to quarantine said live stock, canines or fowls wherever 

found and enforce said quarantine until said live stock have 

been properly treated or vaccinated or tested, dipped or 

otherwise disposed of as may be provided for in the rules 

and regulations of the Live Stock Sanitary Commission. 

The provisions of this Section shall apply to all live stock, 

canines and fowls and to all diseases mentioned in this Act, 

including also scabies among cattle, sheep and goats.” 

In regard to your first question concerning the liability of the Commission for death loss or shrinkage in weight of livestock while they are 

detained for tests or vaccination, the answer is as follows: 

Since the operations of the Articles coming under Chapter 14 of 

Vernon’s Penal Code come under the police power of the State, there would 

be no liability on the part of the State for losses of livestock or losses of 

weight of livestock which are held under authority and in pursuance of these 

statutes. Armstrong v. Whitten, D.C. 41 Fed.2d 241, (1930). Of course, 

there would be no personal liability on the part of the Commissioners so 

long as they were acting within the* authority of this act. Choate v. Renfro, 

126 S.W 2d 718, (Civ.App., 1939). 

In answer to your second question it is our opinion that whether the 

livestock may be impounded and a lien levied for the purpose of securing 

payment of expenses and costs of handling, depends on the type of animal 

and the type of disease involved. 

Article 1525c, dealing with cattle, horses, mules, jacks and jennies 

infested with disease-bearing ticks, is very explicit in its mandates and 
Mr. L. R. Noyes, page 3. (WW-538) 

provides that it is the duty of the county to furnish the vats for dipping, 

and also that the dipping material is to be furnished by the State. It 

also provides in Section 13 that the owner or caretaker is liable for all 

expenses of bringing the cattle or other animals to and from the dipping 

vats. Section 15 provides that if the owner refuses to bring the animals 

to the county dipping vats, the State may go in and dip the cattle itself 

and charge the owner $2.00 a head which is secured by lien fixed on the 

cattle and which lien also attaches for additional expenses~ of hauling, 

feeding and watering the stock while in possession of the State for dipping. Parker v. Miller, 118 S.W.2d 380 (Civ.App., 1938), a case coming 

under this section, held that it would be proper for a sheriff to keep 

animals in his possession for satisfaction of the debt secured by the lien 

which arises under this article. 

Under Article 1525a concerning cattle, sheep and goats infected 

with scabies, Section 2 provides that the Commission can direct the party 

controlling the animals or the owner to have them dipped and can punish 

for failure on the part of the owner or caretaker to dip. Section 18 states 

that if the owner refuses to dip, it is the duty of the County Commissioners’ 

Court to have the animal dipped at the expense of the county. Here it would 

seem that the only recourse of the county to recover expenses for feed and 

water would be through the instigation of a suit for the fine for failure to 

dip and the other expenses involved, 

There are other provisions dealing with a varieiy of diseases such 

as glander, bangs disease, hoof and mouth, and cholera, which do not mention 

the costs of handling and feeding. Since the general provisions of Section 12 

of Article 1525a, state that it is the duty of the owner or caretaker to gather 

the animals for inspection, and since the Legislature, in House Bill 133, 

Acts of the 55th Legislature, 1957, Regular Session, Chapter 395 (General 

Appropriations), has made no provision for handling costs and feeding expenses, it is our opinion that the owner or caretaker would have to provide 

for these expenditures since the Commission would be unauthorized to make 

these disbursements. 

The answer to your third question, concerning the right of the Commission to impound animals and to levy a lien to cover any fines and court 

costs, will likewise depend upon the particular type of livestock involved. 

The only Act which provides a clear answer is found in Section 25, Article 

1525b, which states as follows: 

“County attorney to institute civil actions against 

non-residents for fines 

, 
Mr. L. R. Noyes, page 4. (WW-538) 

“Sec. 25. Whenever any person who is a non-resident 

of the State of Tekas violates any penal provisions of this 

Act and is absent from the State at the time of the said violation or whenever any foreign coryoration which ~does not 

have a permit under the law to do business in the State of 

Texas violates any provision of this Act it shall be the duty 

of the County Attorney in any and all counties in the State 

of Texas wherein said violation occurs to institute a civil 

suit against said non-resident person or foreign corporation 

for the collection of the fine provided in said penal clause, 

and to run an attachment upon any property which said nonresident person or foreign corporation may at any time 

have in the State of Texas and after final judgment to have 

said attached property sold under execution, for the purpose 

of paying said fine and cost of suit. . . .I’ (Emphasis added). 

Under Article 1525c, no such authority exists for bringing a suit to 

recover fines and costs of suit against a person although Section 28 does 

provide that a civil suit might be maintained against a corporation by the 

County Attorney for recovery of fines imposed for violation of Article 

1525~. Since this Section refers to corporations broadly, it seems that 

it applies both to foreign as well as domestic corporations. 

There are no other provisions dealing with animals infected with 

contagious diseases granting the county or other State agencies involved 

the right to attach livestock for payment of fines and court costs, therefore, it is our opinion that no such right exists. 

SUMMARY 

The Livestock Sanitary Commission would not be liable for 

death loss or shrinkage in weight that may occur while livestock are detained for treatment, testing or vaccination. 

Under Section 26, Article 1525b, Vernon’s Penal Code, 

whether or not the C oromission will be able to-hnpound the 

animals and acquire a lien for handling their feed costs or 

for the recovery of the fines and court costs, will depend on 

the type of animal and the type of disease involved. 

Sincerely, 

MD:ci:ls 

. 

Assistant - 
. - 

Mr. L. R. Noyes, page 5. (WW-538) 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Geo. P. Blackburn, Chairman 

Marietta Payne 

Cecil C. Cammack, Jr. 

Morgan Nesbitt 

Riley Eugene Fletcher 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: W. V. Geppert