Honorable Clifford Powell Opinion No. M- 1288 

County Attorney 

Grayson County Courthouse 

Sherman, Texas 75090 

Re: 

Dear Mr. Powell: 

Whether a certain piece of 

equipment used primarily 

for the application of fertilizer and herbicides is required to be registered for 

highway usage ,under Art. 

6675a-2, V. C. S. 

You have requested our opinion as to whether primary use and design 

is the appropriate test to be applied in determining whether a vehicle is an 

“implement of husbandry” within the meaning of Article 6675a-1 (r), 

Vernon’s Civil Statutes. The vehicle in question is the “PAMCO MUD CAT” 

described in some detail in materials attached to your request. 

In Attorney General’s Opinion M-1254 (1972), this office had occasion to 

review the above-cited statutory provision and we held that: 

“It is fundamental then, that whether a vehicle is an 

‘implement of husbandry’ must be determined by the 

primary design and primary use or purpose to which 

the vehicle is put and turns on the ‘facts of any particular case’. ” 

We have therefore previously answered your inquiry as to the appropriate 

test to be applied. Physical appearance, while providing a visual impression 

of the vehicle’s function, can be no more than one element in the overall 

consideration of primary design and use. 

Examinations of the attached materials reveals that the “PAMCO MUD CAT” 

is designed solely to apply liquid and dry fertilizer. The vehicle itself is 

equipped with greatly oversized tires and a planetary axle system to facilitate 

off-the-road use. Mounted upon the vehicle is either a dry bulk fertilizer 

steel body container with hydraulic motor operated 20” spinners used to 

-6317- 
Honorable Clifford Powell, page 2 (M- 1288) 

distribute and apply the dry bulk fertilizer or a 1290 gallon fiberglass single 

or double compartment tank and associated pumps, valves and spreading 

applicators. In addition, the vehicle may be equipped with a wheel mounted 

36’ wing spreader for special dry fertilizer application. While the vehicle 

does have 4-wheels rather than 3 as is the case with some vehicles of similar 

design and purpose the additional wheel is designed to add stability to the 

vehicle during its off-the-road use. 

You state in your request that the “PAMCO MUD CAT” is used to apply 

liquid fertilizer and herbicides to farms owned by the owner of the “PAMCO 

MUD CAT” as well as to the farms of others. The vehicle travels empty 

upon the public highways when moving from one farm to another. Once on 

location at a particular farm, the fertilizer or herbicide is loaded from a 

supply trailer or semi-trailer into the “PAMCO MUD CAT” for subsequent 

application onto the field. During the off-season for fertilizer application 

the vehicle is idle. 

In view of all the factors presented we are persuaded that the “PAMCO 

MUD CAT” is primarily designed and used as an implement of husbandry 

within the meaning of Article 6675a-1 (r), Vernon’s Civil Statutes. While 

the vehicle may conceivably be put to other uses, the Supreme Court in 

Allred v. J. C. Engelman, Inc., 123 Tex. 205, 61 S. W. 2d 75 (1933), 

Yl ALX 417 recognized and overruled this factor as not being dispositive 

of the question so long as the vehicle was primarily designed and used for 

agricultural purposes. 

SUMMARY 

Utilizing the appropriate test of primary design and 

use, the “PAMCO MUD CAT” is an “implement of husbandry” 

within the meaning of Article 6675a- 1 (r), Vernon’s Civil 

Statutes. 

Youmery truly, 

Prepared by Rex H. White, Jr. 

Assistant Attorney General 

-6318- 
Honorable Clifford Powell, page 3 (M- 1288) 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W. E. Allen, Chairman 

Jay Floyd 

James H. Cowden 

Bob Flowers 

John Banks 

SAMUEL D. MCDANIEL 

Staff Legal Assistant 

ALFRED WALKER 

Executive Assistant 

NOLA WHITE 

First Assistant 

-6319-