Hous v. State

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Writing for the CourtCASSODAY
Citation74 N.W. 111,98 Wis. 481
Decision Date08 February 1898
PartiesHOUSTON v. STATE.

98 Wis. 481
74 N.W. 111

HOUSTON
v.
STATE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Feb. 8, 1898.


Original action in the supreme court by Robert S. Houston against the state. Defendant demurred to the complaint. Sustained.

This action was commenced in this court

[74 N.W. 112]

June 29, 1897. The amended complaint alleges, in effect, that during the time mentioned the plaintiff was a farmer, residing on his farm in the county of Kenosha; that he owned and had on the farm a standard herd of dairy cattle, consisting of 60 head of thoroughbred milch cows, Jerseys and Guernseys, and crosses of the thoroughbred cattle; that by chapter 467, Laws 1885, as amended by chapter 76, Laws 1887, provision was and is made for the appointment of a state veterinarian, whose duties are therein set forth; that under and by virtue of the said statutes the state assumed the right and power to invade the premises of any citizen of this state, and, by its officers and agents, to inspect the personal property of any citizen, and to destroy any property of any citizen, in certain cases, and for certain purposes, as in the said laws specifically pointed out and designated, and for that purpose made provision for the appointment of a state veterinarian; that in November, 1895, one J. L. Scott was duly appointed and qualified, and, while acting as state veterinarian under and by virtue of the laws aforesaid, visited the premises of the plaintiff, as claimed by him, to inspect the herd of dairy cattle then owned by the plaintiff, and kept on his farm for the purpose therein indicated; that after such inspection the state veterinarian informed the plaintiff that said herd looked to be in an excellent condition, and entirely free from any disease of any kind whatever, but that, inasmuch as complaint had been made to him that some of the cattle were diseased, he had concluded that it was his duty to test the herd for tuberculosis, by applying and using the so-called tuberculine test; that December 5, 1895, the state veterinarian, in his official capacity, acting for the defendant by virtue of said laws, did, as claimed by him, apply severally to the individual animals composing the herd the so-called tuberculine test for tuberculosis, and as a result of the test the state veterinarian announced that 38 of the animals were affected with tuberculosis, and did then and there, by virtue of the authority he claimed to exercise as the agent of the state, condemn said animals as diseased animals, under the aforesaid laws; that thereafter the state veterinarian went before a justice of the peace in the town, and, in the form and in accordance with the rules prescribed by the statute in such case made and provided, did apply, on behalf of the state, for the appointment of appraisers of the 38 head of cattle so condemned; that thereupon the justice, acting under the provisions of the law, and as agent of the state, appointed three appraisers of the cattle, who appraised the animals at $47 per head, amounting in the whole to $1,710; that said amount is very much less than the actual value of the animals; that the appraisers and officers and agents of the state found themselves, under and pursuant to said laws, charged with the duty, after appraising the cattle, of destroying or killing the cattle so condemned, and burning or burying the same; that no provision was or is made in the acts for paying the expenses thereby incurred; that the officers and agents of the state, to whom the said 38 animals were delivered by the plaintiff pursuant to the directions of the state veterinarian, caused 2 of them to be killed, and made a post mortem examination of the same, and shipped the other 36 head to Chicago, for the purpose of having them sent to a fertilizing establishment to be slaughtered, and thus disposed of without cost and expense; that all of the proceedings herein related were made by and under the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 practice notes
  • Chi., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Douglas Cnty.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 8, 1908
    ...of Menasha, 48 Wis. 79, 4 N. W. 101, 33 Am. Rep. 804;C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. State, 53 Wis. 509, 10 N. W. 560;Houston v. State, 98 Wis. 481, 74 N. W. 111, 42 L. R. A. 39. [114 N.W. 512]W. R. Foley and L. H. Mead, for appellants.Luse, Powell & Luse, for respondent.TIMLIN, J. (afte......
  • Holytz v. City of Milwaukee
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • June 5, 1962
    ...the state. The Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. The State (1881), 53 Wis. 509, 10 N.W. 560; Houston v. The State (1898), 98 Wis. 481, 74 N.W. 111, 42 A.L.R. 39; Schlesinger v. State (1928), 195 Wis. 366, 218 N.W. 440, 57 A.L.R. Although the legislature created sec. 285.01, Stats......
  • State ex rel. Teaching Assistants Ass'n v. University of Wisconsin-Madison, WISCONSIN-MADISON and G
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
    • April 15, 1980
    ...v. Milwaukee, 17 Wis.2d 26, 115 N.W.2d 618 (1962); Trempealeau County v. State, 260 Wis. 602, 51 N.W.2d 499 (1952); Houston v. State, 98 Wis. 481, 74 N.W. 111 (1898). The submission to and rejection of the claim by the legislature is a condition precedent to maintaining a suit on the claim,......
  • People v. Anderson, No. 22222.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • February 23, 1934
    ...were held constitutional. The state may destroy cattle suffering from tuberculosis without making compensation therefor. Houston v. State, 98 Wis. 481, 74 N. W. 111,42 L. R. A. 39; Lawton v. Steele, supra. Such laws have been held constitutional. Under the authority of these cases the provi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
39 cases
  • State ex rel. Teaching Assistants Ass'n v. University of Wisconsin-Madison, WISCONSIN-MADISON and G
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
    • April 15, 1980
    ...v. Milwaukee, 17 Wis.2d 26, 115 N.W.2d 618 (1962); Trempealeau County v. State, 260 Wis. 602, 51 N.W.2d 499 (1952); Houston v. State, 98 Wis. 481, 74 N.W. 111 (1898). The submission to and rejection of the claim by the legislature is a condition precedent to maintaining a suit on the claim,......
  • Holytz v. City of Milwaukee
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • June 5, 1962
    ...against the state. The Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. The State (1881), 53 Wis. 509, 10 N.W. 560; Houston v. The State (1898), 98 Wis. 481, 74 N.W. 111, 42 A.L.R. 39; Schlesinger v. State (1928), 195 Wis. 366, 218 N.W. 440, 57 A.L.R. Although the legislature created sec. 285.01, S......
  • Chi., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Douglas Cnty.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 8, 1908
    ...v. City of Menasha, 48 Wis. 79, 4 N. W. 101, 33 Am. Rep. 804;C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. State, 53 Wis. 509, 10 N. W. 560;Houston v. State, 98 Wis. 481, 74 N. W. 111, 42 L. R. A. 39. [114 N.W. 512]W. R. Foley and L. H. Mead, for appellants.Luse, Powell & Luse, for respondent.TIMLIN, J. (afte......
  • People v. Anderson, No. 22222.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • February 23, 1934
    ...were held constitutional. The state may destroy cattle suffering from tuberculosis without making compensation therefor. Houston v. State, 98 Wis. 481, 74 N. W. 111,42 L. R. A. 39; Lawton v. Steele, supra. Such laws have been held constitutional. Under the authority of these cases the provi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT