Evans v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company
| Decision Date | 29 October 1909 |
| Docket Number | 16,258 - (69) |
| Parties | D. H. EVANS v. CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Lyon county to recover $200 damages sustained by plaintiff. The facts are stated in the opinion. On the trial certain facts were stipulated, and defendant offered no evidence. The case was tried before Olsen, J., who made findings of fact and as conclusion of law ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Inspection of Animals -- Act Constitutional.
Chapter 355, p. 491, Laws 1907, an act to protect public health and health of domestic animals by providing for the inspection of animals imported into this state, does not violate section 8 article 1, of the constitution of the United States, vesting in congress the power to regulate commerce among the several states.
Violation of Act Efficient Cause of Injury.
The defendant brought into this state a horse afflicted with the glanders without complying with the statute as to inspection and delivered it to the owner, who on the same day sold it to the plaintiff, who did not know that the horse was diseased. The horse was inspected and killed under the direction of the live stock sanitary board, to the damage of the plaintiff in the sum of $100. Held, that the defendant's violation of the statute was the efficient and dominant cause of the plaintiff's damages.
Brown, Abbott & Somsen, for appellant.
In order to recover in this action it must appear that: (1) The act under which this action is brought [Laws 1907, c. 355] is constitutional; (2) the act has been violated by defendant; (3) he has been damaged; and (4) the violation of the act was the proximate cause of his damage.
1. The court will take judicial notice of the enormous amount of live stock daily shipped into and through this state. No responsibility whatever is placed upon the shipper, and no standard of care is fixed, except that the company must at its peril determine and know that which in the very nature of the case cannot be known, or suffer a ruinous fine. The supreme court of the United States in Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U.S. 465, 472, holds that state inspection laws must be "reasonable" and that the state may not go beyond "what is absolutely necessary for self-protection" when dealing with interstate transportation; that such laws must not "burden" interstate commerce. The act in question is unreasonable, oppressive and a burden upon interstate commerce. The company is bound to accept and carry every shipment of stock presented for carriage into the state; the carrier can only demand a certificate when it is the intention to use the stock for certain specified purposes. It is neither made the duty of the owner to procure a certificate of inspection or to inform the transportation company of the proposed disposition of the stock. The transportation company has no right to procure all stock to be inspected before it is brought into the state. If the owner deliberately misstates the proposed disposition of the stock, and the transportation company fails to have the inspection made, it is not relieved of the penalty, in case an inspection should in fact have been made. If the transportation company delays the stock for inspection under section 2, and the stock was not designed for the purposes enumerated, the company will be liable for damages for delay, and can neither recover the expense of holding the stock or expense of inspection.
Under the act in question there is no possibility of the transportation company knowing the purpose of the shipment. To hold and make inspection of all shipments would be a violation of the rights of the shipper. The transportation company is by this act obliged to violate its duty as a carrier and subject itself to damages in case it wrongfully delays and procures inspection at its own expense, or make every effort possible to discover the intended use of the animals and submit to a fine of from $50 to $1,000 if it is mistaken or deceived.
The court will take judicial notice that there is much stock equally adapted to immediate slaughter and to feeding and breeding purposes; that there are market places in this state where both horses and cattle are collected for shipment to other markets outside the state; and where shipments are made to such markets there is no intention to put the stock to any of the purposes enumerated.
2. Defendant did not violate the act in question. There is no evidence in this case that at the time the horses in question reached Tracy, or at any time prior thereto, Harlin and Hoerr ever intended to make any sale of the horse in question in the state of Minnesota. There is no evidence that the horse was being brought into the state for any of the purposes enumerated in section 1 of the act. For all the evidence in this case shows, the horse may have been billed through the state of Minnesota to a point in another state and have been diverted to Tracy. It is sufficient to say that the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff to show that when the horse in question reached the state line, it was being brought into the state for some one of the purposes specified in section 1 of the act in question, and that there is absolutely no evidence that such was the case.
The law is confined solely to transportation companies. The railroad grader, the gipsy camp and the mover may pass the state line without any supervision whatever, and the stock buyer may buy and sell within the boundaries of the state without restriction. There is no policy of the law to make any general inspection of live stock in this state, or being brought into the state. The court will take judicial notice that there are large sheep feeding plants in this state; that the feeders send their agents out into the west and ship in their stock for feeding; that the proprietors of grading camps ship their horses into the state for the purpose of establishing camps and doing work within the state; that the farmers are constantly shipping stock into the state for breeding purposes. The act in question was drawn primarily to cover these conditions, and was intentionally drawn so as not to cover the other conditions above referred to. It follows that the shipment by a stock dealer of stock into this state with the indefinite purpose simply of selling it upon the market, without reference to the use to which it may ultimately be put, does not require the carrier to have it inspected. It would have been an easy matter for the legislature to have included "sale" among the specified purposes if such had been the intent.
Where the law enjoins a duty to do, or refrain from doing, an act, not vicious in itself, knowledge and intent are necessary to guilt, unless the law expressly excludes such element.
3. The only damage which plaintiff has suffered is in purchasing a worthless horse of Harlin and Hoerr and paying $100 for it. No property has become lost, injured or depreciated in value by reason of the failure to have the horse inspected. The horse was worth nothing in the hands of the seller and nothing in the hands of the buyer. The horse would have been worth no more if it had been inspected. The proximate cause of plaintiff's loss was in buying a worthless horse and paying $100 for it.
4. The burden of proof is upon plaintiff to show that an inspection at the time it would probably have been made would have disclosed the diseased condition of the horse in question and prevented the sale. The evidence does not establish such fact.
N. J. Robinson, for respondent.
This law is very just and reasonable, and is absolutely necessary for the safety and protection of the health and sanitary condition of the live stock of this state. The report of the live stock sanitary board of this state shows that it has been the practice of the owners of large horse ranches in western states, when glanders have broken out among their horses, to ship them out of the state and scatter them around through this state, as well as other states, and causes horses infected with a very contagious disease to be sold for a large consideration in this state and mingled with healthy horses, so that unless it is prevented, it will become impossible for the live stock sanitary board of this state to wipe out, or even control in any manner, such contagious diseases among animals and result in enormous losses to the stock raisers of the state, and is a law that should be upheld.
This action was brought in the district court of the county of Lyon to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the defendant's violation of the provisions of chapter 355, p. 491, Laws 1907. The case was tried by the court without a jury. Findings of fact were made, and as a conclusion of law therefrom judgment was ordered and entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $100, from which the defendant appealed.
The facts found by the court are to the effect following: The defendant is, and was during the times hereinafter stated, a common carrier operating a railroad line between Tracy, this state, and Pierre, in the state of South Dakota. On August 4 1907, the defendant, as such carrier, brought into this state, and to Tracy from Pierre, over its railway line, thirty horses, owned by Messrs. Harlin & Hoerr, and on August 14, 1907, delivered one of the horses from its car at Tracy to such owners, who on that day sold it to the plaintiff for $100, which he paid therefor. The horse, at the time the defendant delivered it to the owners thereof, and when they sold it to the plaintiff, had the glanders, and was of no value whatever by reason thereof. The plaintiff did...
To continue reading
Request your trial