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 proof 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 
85De Garea v. Galvin, 55 
Tex. 53; Beyman v. Black, 47 
Tex. 558. 
86 Herber v. State, 7 Tex. 69; 
Poag v. State, 40 Tex. 151; 
Corn v. State, 41 Tex. 301; Al- 
Jen v. State, 42 Tex. 517; Els- 
ner v. State, 22 Tex. App. 687, 
3.8. W. 474; State v. Cardelli, 
19 Nev. 319, 10 Pac. 433. 
87 Love v. State, 15 Tex. App. 
563; Hutton v. State, 7 Tex. Cr. 
App. 44; State v. Cardelli, 19 
Ney. 319, 10 Pac. 433; Jobn- 
son v. State, 1 Tex. App. 333. 
88 Edwards v. Osman, 84 
Tex. 656, 19 S. W. 868. 
89 Murray v. Trinidad Nat. 
Bank, 5 Col. 359, 38 Pac. 615. 
90 Chestnut v. People, 21 Col. 
512, 42 Pac. 656. 
