Texas Attorney General Opinion: V-193 Page: 2 of 3
This text is part of the collection entitled: Texas Attorney General Opinions and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Hon. Co E. Patterson - Page 2, V-193
We think that wool does constitute a "farm
product", and its storage in a government warehouse
pending ultimate sale does not preclude its being "in
the hands of the producer,
Literally farming means the tillage or cul-
tivation of the soil. But., as said by the court in the
case of Dorthy Keene vs. nk B. Besman (Maryland
Court of Appeals, 1T T75 y O03fK L.R. 1515:
"Like many words compounded of different elements, it
has the meaning of its own broader than that of the
elements considered separately; for from time immemorial
it has been regarded as synonymous with husbandry and
includes, not only the cultivation of the soil and the
raising of crops but also gathering in the crops and
raising livestoc.. , and as a natural concomitant af
those activities, marketing of the products of thesoil,
the increase and the products yielded by the stock,
such as wool and mik + That has been so from the
earliest timeese.7 Ephasis added)
We continue to quote from this case as fol-
lows: "But, where the milk sold is produced by cattle
kept on the farm as a part of its operation, the busi-
ness of produce and selling it is necessarily an ag-
rioultural pursuit, for the production of milk from
cattle which consume the crops grown on the farm is as
clearly an agricultural pursuit as raising sha~ for
their wool. ." (Emphasis added) in Davis vs. Ef
tril Coaission (Supreme Court of UtaT7 , "7 Pac,
," sheep herder was held to be an agricultural la-
borer. In a Texas case, Hill v. Georgia Casualty Co.
(Tex. Commission of Appeals), 45 S.l. (2d) 566, it was
held that one employed at a nursery for the propagation
of trees, Vines shrubs, etc., was an agricultural la-
borer, and as a necessary corallary we think it follows
that a ranchman engaged in raising sheep for the pro-
duction and sale of wool is producing an agricultural
or farm product. As long as such wool remains unsold
by the. ranchman it is a farm product in h4I hands and
as such is specifically exempt under the. foregoing pro-
vision of the Constitution.
The Legislature has never by two-thirds vote
of all members of both Houses imposed a tax upon farm
products "in the hands of the producer"0
This constitutional exemption from taxation
would not apply to wool that has passed out of the hands.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: V-193, text, May 8, 1947; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth265013/m1/2/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.