Bonnett v. Brown
| Decision Date | 06 January 1930 |
| Docket Number | 28288 |
| Citation | 125 So. 427,155 Miss. 833 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | BONNETT v. BROWN |
On Suggestion of Error, Jan. 20, 1930.
ANIMALS. Constitutional law. Statute requiring live stock to be kept inclosed and for procedure as in estray matters held constitutional and conforming to due process (Laws 1926 chapter 263, sections 1-3; Hemingway's Code 1927 sections 1614-1641).
Chapter 263, Laws of 1926, entitled "An act to encourage the live stock industry, to create a state-wide stock law, and prevent the spread of Texas fever ticks," is constitutional as applied to sections 1 and 2 and that portion of section 3 which provides the procedure to be as in estray matters; such procedure constituting due process of law.
APPEAL from circuit court of George county HON. W. A. WHITE, Judge.
Action by C. M. Bennett against F. C. Brown. On appeal from judgment of justice of peace for plaintiff, defendant recovered judgment after trial de novo in circuit court, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and rendered.
Judgment reversed. Sustain in part, and overruled in part.
O. F. Moss, of Lucedale, for appellant.
Appellant submits that the so-called state-wide stock law attempts to take property of a person without due process of law, and is therefore violative of section 14 of the Constitution of our state and of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. A statute authorizing the sale of animals taken up on the open range or unenclosed lands without providing for notice or a hearing is unconstitutional and void.
The third section of chapter 263 of Laws of 1926, is unconstitutional and void because it attempts to deprive citizens of their property without due process of law.
T. H. Byrd, of Lucedale, for appellee.
Under the police regulations and powers of the state the legislature has wide range of authority, in the passage of laws for the public welfare and interest of its citizenship, and under such authority chapter 263 of the Laws of 1926, is valid, is not violative of section 14 of the Constitution of the state of Mississippi, or the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Moss v. Mississippi Live Stock Sanitary Board, 122 So. 779; 12 C. J. 907-909; Ross v. Desha Levee Board, 83 Ark. 176, 103 S.W. 380; 3 C. J., page 136.
F. C. Brown, the appellee, took up certain hogs belonging to C. M. Bonnett found upon the premises of Brown in George county, Mississippi. He notified Bonnett to take the hogs and confine them. Bonnett insisted that Brown "fix his fence," and that he continue to operate as he had before the passage of the state-wide stock law, which Brown refused to do. Bonnett confined the hog's for a few days so as to give Brown time to repair his fence, and then turned them out upon the range again. The hogs came upon Brown's place again and were taken up by Brown and confined, and the owner notified by written notice. Bennett refused to keep the hogs confined, and notice was given under the first part of section 3 of chapter 263, Laws of 1926, to a justice of the peace, there being no ranger in George county at that time, and the justice of the peace proceeded to deal with the stock, as provided in the chapter on estrays (chapter 26 of Hemingway's Code of 1927); whereupon Bonnett sued out a writ of replevin before the said justice of the peace and the cause came on for trial before the justice of the peace, and a verdict and judgment was rendered for Bonnett; from which judgment Brown appealed to the circuit court where there was trial de novo at the end of which the court granted a peremptory instruction for Brown and entered judgment that the hogs, which had been bonded by Bonnett under provisions allowing the plaintiff to bond them in the first instance where they had been taken from his possession within thirty days from suing out the writ of replevin, be restored to the said Brown.
The appellant, Bonnett, sought to show by the record of the board of supervisors, and the members of the board, that the board had never entered any order declaring the stock law to be in force in that county, which was excluded by the court. He thereupon tried to prove that it was the custom of the people of George county to permit live stock to run at large upon range, which evidence the court also excluded.
The value of the hogs was proven, and there was proof as to what proceedings had been taken before the justice of the peace, but there was no judgment entered in the court below fixing the value of the hogs, nor alternative provision to pay the opposite party's interest in the replevin property.
It appears that this suit is for the purpose of testing the constitutionality of chapter 263, Laws of 1926, entitled "An act to encourage the live stock industry, to create a state-wide stock law, and to prevent the spread of the Texas fever ticks." Sections 1 and 12 of the act reads as follows:
These two sections are conceded by the appellant to be within the legislative power and constitutional. It is insisted however, that section 3 renders the act unconstitutional, because it denies the owner of the stock due process of law, and deprives him of property without due process of law. This section reads as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Bridges
... ... 229, 80 So. 645; G. M. & N. R. R. Co. v. Collins, ... 117 So. 593; Carlo v. B. & L. E. R. Co., 143 A. 5 ... (Pa.); C., N. O. & T. P. R. v. Brown, 12 S.W.2d 381; ... Houpy v. Morgan's L. & T. R. Co., 119 So. 750 ... (La.); Peterson v. La. Ry. U. N. Co., 119 So. 759 (La.) ... When ... ...
-
Thompson v. Tobacco Root Co-op. State Grazing Dist.
... ... [121 ... Mont. 447] Frank E. Blair, of Virginia City, for appellants ... Rockwood ... Brown & Horace S. Davis, of Billings, Lyman H. Bennett, Jr., ... of Virginia City and Marion B. Porter and Norman Hanson, both ... of Billings, for ... validity of the statute as to those because they do not fall ... in that class. Bonnett v. Brown, 155 Miss. 833, 125 ... So. 427. It is well settled that only those adversely ... affected by the operation [121 Mont. 451] of a statute ... ...
-
Cook v. Waldrop
... ... Board, 119 Miss. 500; Byrd v. Welch, Sheriff, ... 128 Miss. 839; Cooper v. Martin, 141 Miss. 756; ... Hawkins v. Hoye, 108 Miss. 282; Bonnett v. Brown, ... 125 So. 427 ... Every ... state that has had to combat the Texas fever tick has had a ... law similar to our own, which ... ...
- Mason v. Stroud