Ives v. Norris

• Decision Date: 21 September 1882
• Citation: 13 N.W. 276,13 Neb. 252
• Parties: IVES v. NORRIS.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

13 Neb. 252

13 N.W. 276

IVES

v.NORRIS.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Filed September 21, 1882.

Error from Dodge county.

Mr. Bell, for plaintiff.

Mr. Gray, for defendant.

BY THE COURT.

This action was commenced in the county court of Dodge county by the defendant in error, against the plaintiff in error, to recover the value of a grade Durham bull belonging to the defendant, which bull, it is alleged, was castrated by the plaintiff. The case was tried to a jury in the county court, and verdict and judgment were given for the defendant in error. The case was taken, on error, to the district court, where the judgment of the county court was affirmed. The action is brought under the provisions of an act entitled “An act regulating the herding and driving of stock,” approved February 26, 1879.

Section 1 of the act provides what persons shall be deemed stock-growers. Section 2 provides a penalty for driving among the stock of another. Section 3 provides that the brand shall be prima facie evidence of ownership. Section 4 provides “that no stallions over the age of eighteen months; nor any Mexican, Texan, or Cherokee bull over the age of ten months; nor any Mexican ram over the age of eight months,--shall be entitled to run at large in the state of Nebraska. The owner or person in charge of such animals as are prohibited from running at large by this section, who shall permit such animal or animals to run at large, may be fined for each offense not less than $50 nor more than $200; and it shall be lawful for any person to castrate or cause to be castrated any such animal running at large: provided, that if any person shall castrate any stallion, bull, or ram, and it shall, on proper evidence, be proven to the satisfaction of said court that such animal was not of the class of stock prohibited from running at large by this act, said person shall be liable for damages to the amount of the value of said animal so castrated, and the costs of suit: provided, also, that, for the purpose of this act, any bull possessing one-half Texan, Mexican, or Cherokee blood, shall not be deemed a Texan, Mexican, or Cherokee bull, as the case may be; and any ram possessing one-half Mexican blood, shall not be deemed a Mexican ram.”

It is claimed on behalf of the defendant that this statute provides, as a penalty for the castration of a bull not within the prohibited classes, that the person causing the act to be performed shall pay the value of the animal. Does the title of the act in question authorize the imposition of such penalty? We think not. The title of an act must express the subject of the bill.

In White v. City of Lincoln, 5 Neb. 516, it is said: “The object of this conditional provision is to prevent surreptitious legislation by incorporating into bills obnoxious provisions which have no connection with the general object of the bill, and of which the title gives no indication. It will be sufficient,however, if the bill have but one general object, which is fairly expressed in the title.” See, also, Tecumseh v. Phillips, Id. 311; Lincoln Ass'n v. Graham, 7 Neb. 179;Dawson County v. McNamar, 10 Neb. 279;Miller v. Herford, 11 Neb. 381. The condition makes the title the index of the legislative intention as to the subject-matter of the bill,...