252 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 



ownership of cattle so branded.^^ It was also 

 held that a mark or brand constitutes of itself no 

 evidence of ownership unless the mark or brand 

 has been recorded.^*^ A statute making a recorded 

 brand evidence of ownership does not exclude 

 other evidence to show ownership. ^'^ 



A judgment foreclosing a mortgage on cattle 

 which were designated by brands given in the 

 mortgage will not be set aside on the ground that 

 the mortgage did not cover the increase, in the 

 absence of evidence that the increase of the cattle 

 were branded with the brands descriptive of the 

 stock covered in the mortgage.^^ Where the de- 

 fendant, in replevin for horses, relies solely on a 

 certain brand on horses as evidence of ownership, 

 evidence of the sale of horses so branded to the 

 defendant is incompetent without jDroof that such 

 brand has been recorded by the grantor.^^ 



200. Sale of Brand. Where the law permits an 

 assignment of brand, but does not specify how, 

 it is proper to admit parole evidence of such as- 

 signment made before the passage of the law 

 requiring recording.^^ Under a contract whereby 

 defendant sold his brand to plaintiff, defendant 

 to have his horses on the range, plaintiff to be the 



85 De Garca v. Galvin, 55 563 ; Hutton v. State, 7 Tex. Cr. 

 Tex. 53; Beyman v. Black, 47 App. 44; State v. Cardelli, 19 

 Tex. 558. Nev. 319, 10 Pac. 433; John- 



86 Herber v. State, 7 Tex. 69 ; son v. State, 1 Tex. App. 333. 

 Poag V. State, 40 Tex. 151 ; 88 Edwards v. Osman, 84 

 Corn V. State, 41 Tex. 301 ; Al- Tex. 656, 19 S. W. 868. 



len V. State, 42 Tex. 517; Els- so Murray v. Trinidad Nat. 



ner v. State, 22 Tex. App. 687, Bank, 5 Col. 359, 38 Pac. 615, 



3 S. W. 474; State v. Cardelli, so Chestnut v. People, 21 Col. 



19 Nev. 319, 10 Pac. 433. 512, 42 Pac. 656. 



87 Love V. State, 15 Tex. App. 



