Gumm v. Jones

• Decision Date: 08 January 1906
• Citation: 115 Mo. App. 597,92 S.W. 169
• Parties: GUMM v. JONES et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

92 S.W. 169

115 Mo. App. 597

GUMM v. JONES et al.

Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri.

January 8, 1906.

ANIMALS—HOG LAW—REPEAL.

Rev. St. 1879, c. 159, providing for restraining swine from running at large was repealed by act March 27, 1883 (Laws 1883, p. 26), providing for the restraining of domestic animals from running at large, to wit, animals of the species of horse, mule, ass, cattle, swine, sheep, or goats; the later act being intended to cover the entire subject of restraining domestic animals thereby superseding the former law.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County; J. D. Perkins, Judge.

Action by J. W. Gumm against H. Jones and others. From a judgment in favor of defendant on appeal from a justice of the peace, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Shannon & Shannon, for appellant. Howard Gray, for respondents.

BROADDUS, P. J.

The plaintiff commenced this action before a justice of the peace to recover the value of two hogs detained by defendants under the law restraining animals from running at large. The case was appealed to the circuit court, where defendants prevailed, and plaintiff appealed.

The only question presented for consideration is: Was the law restraining swine from running at large in force in Jasper county? At the time the special election was held to determine whether swine should be restrained from running at large, the act approved March 27, 1883 (Laws 1883, p. 26), was in force. On August 16, 1883, a petition was presented to the county court of Jasper County, signed by 100 persons styling themselves as "freeholders" praying the court to make an order for a special election to be held for the purpose of restraining swine from running at large in the county. Whereupon, the court ordered that such special election be held in the county for the purpose, according to the provisions of chapter 159, Rev. St. 1879. The election was held in pursuance of said order, and on the 29th day of September following, the court found and declared that the proposition had been carried. The plaintiff contends that, as chapter 159, under which said special election was held, was not then in force, the result was nugatory. The act of 1883 does not purport to be an amendment to the law found in the revision of 1879, but the substitution of a new act. The latter law only provided for restraining swine from running at large: whereas the former is an act "to restrain domestic animals from running at large," viz., animals "of the species of...