Benton v. Willis

Decision Date29 July 1905
CitationBenton v. Willis, 76 Ark. 443, 88 S. W. 1000 (Ark. 1905)
PartiesBENTON v. WILLIS
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal fro Saline Circuit Court ALEXANDER M. DUFFIE, Judge.

Affirmed.

E. S Willis brought replevin against the incorporated town of Benton, alleging that he was the owner of eleven hogs which had been impounded by defendant.

The case was submitted on the following agreed statement of facts, towit: That plaintiff is the owner of the eleven hogs sued for; that plaintiff resides outside the incorporated town of Benton; that the hogs were taken up by the poundmaster while running at large within the incorporated town of Benton, and by him put in the town pound; that plaintiff within twenty-four hours after they were impounded made demand for said hogs, but did not pay the impounding charges nor offer to pay them; that defendant refused to deliver up said hogs, and that this occurred on the 28th day of March, 1903.

The defendant introduced the following ordinance in evidence as constituting the law of the incorporated town of Benton towit:

"RESTRAINING STOCK FROM RUNNING AT LARGE.

"Sec 140.The running at large anywhere within the limits of this town after October 1, 1902, of any horse, ass, jennet, mule colt, sheep, goat or hog is expressly prohibited, and the owner or the possessor of any such animal permitted to violate this section shall pay all costs incurred by reason of every such violation.Ordinance Sept. 8, 1902.

"Sec 141.The town marshall or any town stock impounders having authority so to do shall promptly and strictly enforce the provisions of all the sections under this heading by immediately taking up and impounding in the town pound, by feeding and watering from day to day, and if unclaimed by finally advertising and selling at public auction within the hour for judicial sales at the front gate of town pound, for cash in hand to the highest bidder, all animals so impounded and unclaimed.Ib.

"Sec. 142.On the same day wherein any animal may be impounded, the taker up of every such animal shall post up written or printed advertisements at the following places in this town: One at the south side of the court square and one at mayor's office and one near the front gate of the town pound where the impounded animals are to be kept, which posted notices shall each describe the ear and flesh marks of each animal advertised with such clearness as to inform the public of its identity, shall state kind of animal, the day, manner and terms of sale, and shall each be so posted for a period of not less than ten days before the day fixed for its sale.A copy of every such notice shall be filed with the recorder to be kept for the inspection of the public.Ib.

"Sec. 143.The charges for enforcing this ordinance, which shall be paid into the town treasury in all cases, are hereby fixed as follows: For every animal other than hogs, sheep and goats impounded, fifty cents for the taking up and fifty cents per day for the feeding and watering of each, and for each and every other animal contemplated in this ordinance the charges shall be twenty-five cents for the taking up and fifteen cents per day for the feeding and watering each animal, except sucklings, for each of which the charges shall be ten cents for each taking up and five cents each for keeping per day.The marshal or impounder, for his services in enforcing the provisions herein relating to the impounding, keeping and selling of stock, shall receive only such compensation as the town council may from time to time allow.Ib.

"Sec. 144.The owner or possessor may at any time before the day of sale reclaim any and all stock by presenting to the marshal or impounder the receipt of the town treasurer showing that the provisions of the foregoing sections under this heading have been complied with."Ib.

The following was given as the law of the case at the instance of the plaintiff, to-wit: That a person living outside of the town limits having stock taken up under the ordinance has the right to the possession of same upon demand made within twenty-four hours, without paying any fee for impounding same, and that the act approved May 23, 1901, does not repeal section 1 of the act approved April 20, 1895.

The defendant asked the court to declare the law to be that, by virtue of the ordinance of the town of Benton introduced in evidence, the town had the right to take up the hogs sued for if the said hogs were found running at large within the town limits of said town, and impound them, and charge a fee for impounding them, and that before the owner could take said hogs out...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
31 cases
  • Poe v. Street Improvement District No. 340
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 25, 1923
    ...Ark. 606; 149 Ark. 183. Act 280 of 1919 and a like provision in act 246 of 1909 have been upheld. 125 Ark. 57; 143 Ark. 625; 154 Ark. 139; 76 Ark. 443; 73 Ark. 536; Ark. 429; 112 Ark. 437; 123 Ark. 184. If act of 1919 unconstitutional, act of 1909 remains unimpaired. 85 Ark. 346; 97 Ark. 32......
  • Brake v. Sides
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 9, 1910
    ...is void. 77 Ark. 89; 74 Ark. 104; 25 Ark. 225. Repeals by implication are not favored. 11 Ark. 103; Id. 496; 23 Ark. 304; 24 Ark. 479; 76 Ark. 443; 28 Ark. 317; 29 Ark. 225; 76 Ark. 32; 50 Ark. 132. Subsequent laws do not abrogate prior one unless they are clearly in conflict with each othe......
  • Board of Directors of St. Francis Levee District v. Fleming
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 24, 1910
    ...Ark. 158; Id. 522; 89 Ark. 300. See also 48 Ark. 312; 49 Ark. 266; 50 Ark. 340; 74 Ark. 488; Angell on Limitations, §§ 1-5; 79 Ark. 364; 76 Ark. 443; 144 U.S. 3. By reason of the fact that, prior to the decree of sale under which appellant obtained its deed, McCann paid to it the levee taxe......
  • Hopper v. Fagan
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 23, 1922
    ... ... 136, 213 S.W. 386; Pope v ... Nashville, 131 Ark. 429, 199 S.W. 101; ... Smith v. Farmers' Bank, 125 Ark. 459, ... 188 S.W. 1167; Benton v. Willis, 76 Ark ... 443, 88 S.W. 1000; Beavers v. State, 60 ... Ark. 124, 29 S.W. 144; and State v. Sewell, ... 45 Ark. 387 ... ...
  • Get Started for Free