Hill v. Cameron

• Decision Date: 30 June 1915
• Docket Number: 853
• Citation: 69 So. 636,194 Ala. 376
• Parties: HILL v. CAMERON et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

69 So. 636

194 Ala. 376

HILL v. CAMERON et al.

No. 853

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 30, 1915

Appeal from Chancery Court, Limestone County; James E. Horton, Jr. Chancellor.

Suit by John C. Hill against W.W. Cameron and others. From a decree dissolving a temporary injunction, complainant appeals. Reversed and rendered.

Williams & Roberts and Paul Hodges, all of Florence, for appellant.

J.G Rankin, Sanders & Thach, Fred Wall, and W.R. Walker, all of Athens, for appellees.

GARDNER J.

This appeal is from the decree of the chancellor of the Northern chancery division, entered June 4, 1915, dissolving the temporary injunction theretofore issued in the cause. The bill shows that the complainant, a resident of Limestone county, Ala., is the owner of certain cattle, which are in his possession in said county, and that these respondents acting under an order of the commissioners' court of Limestone county, claimed the right, under assumed authority as inspectors of cattle in the work of tick eradication, to force owners of cattle in said county to "dip" the same, and the right to enter upon private property for the purpose of inspecting cattle and premises, and to quarantine any stall, lot, or pasture in which cattle are kept, and to prohibit any owner of cattle from removing, selling, or otherwise disposing of them, and in pursuance of such claim of right or authority they have interfered with complainant's property, and have committed trespass against it, and against his person, by having him arrested to enforce compliance with their unlawful demands; that respondents have quarantined the said cattle, and have forbidden complainant to remove, transport, sell, or otherwise dispose of his said property, and have demanded that he "dip" the cattle; that upon his failure to do so these respondents would arrest him, and have him tried as a violator of the law, and that they have, in fact, quarantined his said cattle, and thereby destroyed his property rights in them, and his ability to remove or dispose of them; that they have arrested him at two different times, and are making threats of continuous interference with complainant's said property and of the arrest of his person. It is further alleged in the bill that respondents are acting without warrant or authority of law, and that the order of the commissioners' court, set out in the fourth paragraph of the bill, is void; that there has been no election upon the question of tick eradication in said county, as provided by the act of March 5, 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 123). It is further shown that on April 1, 1915, a notice of quarantine of Limestone county was issued, effective on that day, and duly published in the newspapers of that county by the state veterinarian, which notice begins as follows:

"Auburn, Ala., April 1, 1915.

"The legally authorized officials of Limestone county, Ala., have decided to take up tick eradication. Therefore I hereby quarantine Limestone county for the purpose of carrying on the work of tick eradication," etc.

See Code 1907, § 760.

It is further shown in the bill that the commissioners' court, by an order duly entered, placed Limestone county under quarantine, and provided that said work should begin on February 15, 1915. The order of the commissioners' court is set out in full in the bill, but it is not necessary to be repeated here. It appears to have been entered at the November term, 1914, of said court. It is without dispute that Limestone county is under stock law.

There can be no serious question as to the fact that the commissioners' court was acting under the authority of the amendatory act of August 26, 1909 (S.S.1909, p. 187), declared unconstitutional by this court in Ferguson v. Court of Co. Com'rs, Jackson County, 65 So. 1028. The substance of the bill, therefore, is that these respondents are assuming authority to act under a void order of the commissioners' court, and that their actions invade and are destructive of the property rights of the complainant. The bill further avers the insolvency of the respondents. The general equity of the bill seems not to be questioned by counsel for appellees. Board of Com'rs v. Orr, 181 Ala. 308, 61 So. 920, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 575. The respondents in their answer admit that they were acting as live stock inspectors of Limestone county, and that the matters complained of by complainant were done by them in such capacity, but they deny that they were acting without authority of law.

In the fifth paragraph of the bill is set out the order of the commissioners' court, hereinafter referred to, as well as the notice of quarantine of date of April 1, 1915, by the state veterinarian, an extract from which is quoted above. The sixth paragraph of the bill concludes as follows:

"*** That they are acting under the orders set out in the fourth and fifth paragraphs hereof, which are the only orders issued by the state live stock sanitary board or by said commissioners' court."

In the second paragraph of the answer this averment finds no denial; but it is averred, along with other things, that on February 15, 1915, the respondent Cameron, as state live stock inspector, began the work of cattle tick eradication, and that he has been engaged in such work up to the present time in Limestone county, and that subsequently (the time not being stated) respondents White and Allen did the same work. It is then averred that they were duly appointed inspectors by the state live stock board and by the state veterinarian. The answer insists that the respondents were acting under authority of law, and in the sixth paragraph thereof it is contended that the act of March 5, 1915, hereinafter referred to, does not affect the situation in Limestone county for the reason that prior to the passage of said act the state live stock sanitary board had inaugurated and taken up the work of tick eradication in said county of date February 15, 1915.

The answer shows that respondent Cameron is a federal inspector, doing work in Alabama; that he has been appointed by the state live stock board as an inspector in the state, and is acting in such capacity without compensation. It is further insisted in the answer that the provision of the act of March 5, 1915, is not the exclusive method of placing a county under the influence of sections 757-777 of the Code of 1907, and that said act does not repeal the power of the state live stock board to put into effect the provision of said statutes. There was offered upon the submission a separate affidavit of the respondent Cameron, but a careful reading of it does not disclose that it adds materially to the averments of the answer. It shows, however, that the official quarantine has been in operation in Limestone county since April 1, 1915.

In the case of State v. McCarty, 5 Ala.App. 212, 59 So. 543, speaking of the law here under consideration, the writer of the opinion said:

"It cannot be denied that the motive which prompted the Legislature in placing these statutes in our code of laws was wise and beneficent."

The opinion emphasized the importance of legislation of this character. While in full accord with the sentiments expressed in this regard, this court, in the performance of its duty, which is solely to declare the law, was constrained to declare the act of August 26, 1909, heretofore referred to, void, as having been passed in violation of our constitutional provision. Ferguson v. Court of County Com'rs, supra. In the Ferguson Case, speaking of the several amendments to this law, it was said:

"The above amendments clearly indicate that the legislative mind was disturbed only concerning what localities should be affected by the law."

The act of August 26, 1909, had left this question to the court of county commissioners of the county to determine when the matter should become effective therein. Prior to the passage of the act, under the provisions of section 765 of the Code, the work of cattle tick eradication was left to be undertaken in any county or any part of the state when the state live stock board deemed best. Limestone county is under stock law, and therefore section 770 of the Code and the amendatory act thereto of August 26, 1909, referred to and noted in Ferguson v. Court of County Comr's, supra, need no comment here, especially as they were expressly repealed by the act of February 19, 1915. It therefore appears that, the act of August 26, 1909, having been stricken, the Code provision (section 765), which left it to the determination of the state live stock sanitary board as to when the work of cattle tick eradication should be taken up in any county of the state, was in force and effect. With this situation in view, and no doubt having in mind the decision of this court in the Ferguson Case, supra, the Legislature, by the act of March 5, 1915, left the determination of the question to a vote of the people. The title of the act, and sections 9 and 11 thereof, read as follows:

"To submit to the qualified electors of each of the counties of this state the question of whether or not the work of tick eradication shall be taken up in said county, under the state live stock sanitary board as provided by law."

"Sec. 9. If a majority of the electors voting in said election shall vote in favor of tick eradication, the work shall be taken up in said county within three months after said election, as is provided by law, and if a majority of the electors vote against tick eradication, the work shall not be taken up in said county."

"Sec. 11. That all laws and parts of laws in conflict with this act be and the same are hereby repealed."

In the light of the history of the amendments which relate to this subject, as shown in the Ferguson Case, supra, and in view of the...