The information about Texas that you have provided, is an OPINION. An OPINION is not a LAW. The document CLEARLY states, no less then 5 times, the it is an OPINION. I don't know why it is so difficult for you to understand that. Read the entire OPINION and cross reference it with the statute and cases cited. Section 801.357 of the Occupations Code is the only statute cited and it deals with a veterinarians obligations if the animal is ABANDONED.
There is no need for further discussion due to the fact that your theory has once again been proven to be false. If you would like to continue making yourself look like a complete idiot, be my guess!
Further more, none of the cases cited involve a veterinarian holding an animal for collateral. All of this is irrelevant anyway because the OPINION was issued on October 3, 2001 and is now not only outdated, it is also not applicable. John Cornyn is no longer the Attorney General and his OPINION on Texas legal matters means nothing.§ 801.357. RESPONSIBILITY OF VETERINARIAN TOWARD
ABANDONED ANIMALS. (a) A veterinarian may dispose of an animal
that is abandoned in the veterinarian's care if the veterinarian:
(1) gives the client, by certified mail to the client's
last known address, notice of the veterinarian's intention to
dispose of the animal; and
(2) allows the client to retrieve the animal during
the 10 days after the date the veterinarian mails the notice.
(b) A veterinarian may not dispose of an animal under
Subsection (a) if:
(1) a contract between the veterinarian and client
provides otherwise; or
(2) after notice is given under Subsection (a), the
veterinarian and client agree to extend the veterinarian's care of
the animal.
(c) The client's contact of the veterinarian by mail,
telephone, or personal communication does not extend the
veterinarian's obligation to treat, board, or care for an animal
unless the veterinarian and client agree to extend the
veterinarian's care of the animal.
(d) An animal is considered abandoned on the 11th day after
the date the veterinarian mails the notice under Subsection (a)
unless an agreement is made to extend the care for the animal.
(e) Notice given by a veterinarian under Subsection (a) does
not relieve a client of liability to pay for treatment, boarding, or
care provided by the veterinarian.
Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 388, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999. Amended
by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 971, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 2005.
There is no need for further discussion due to the fact that your theory has once again been proven to be false. If you would like to continue making yourself look like a complete idiot, be my guess!