Laforge v. State Bd. of Health

• Decision Date: 20 May 1941
• Citation: 237 Wis. 597,296 N.W. 93
• Parties: LAFORGE et al. v. STATE BOARD OF HEALTH et al.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

237 Wis. 597

296 N.W. 93

LAFORGE et al.

v.STATE BOARD OF HEALTH et al.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Feb. 4, 1941.

Rehearing Denied May 20, 1941.

Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Dane County; A. C. Hoppmann, Judge.

Affirmed.

Application for mandamus March 15, 1940, by John T. LaForge, Sr., John T. LaForge, Jr., and Richard C. LaForge, doing business as John T. LaForge & Sons, to compel the Wisconsin State Board of Health to issue a renderer's license to petitioners. From an order denying the writ, petitioners appeal.

Petitioners are residents of and engaged in the business of rendering at Freeport, Illinois. They seek a license from the State of Wisconsin under sec. 146.12, Stats., to conduct the business of collecting and disposing of the bodies of dead animals or parts thereof not slaughtered for human consumption. It is assumed that the petitioners' plant and equipment meet the requirements of the Wisconsin licensing statute. There are no facts in controversy. The questions raised by the motion to quash the alternative writ are: (1) Is an out-of-state renderer entitled to a license? (2) Are the petitioners entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling the State Board of Health to enter into reciprocal agreements with other states, or adopt rules to the end that the carcasses of dead animals may be transported out of the state?Raymond van Wolkenten, of Madison, for appellants.

John E. Martin, Atty. Gen., and Warren H. Resh, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

P. F. Leuch, of Milwaukee, amicus curiae.

FAIRCHILD, Justice.

[1][2] The statute relating to the rendering business on which appellants rely in their application for a license is an exercise by the state of a self-protecting right under the police power, and it regulates transportation over its highways of dead animal matter likely to spread disease as well as the construction and operation of the plants in which the matter is to be rendered. Within its own borders the state may efficiently inspect and regulate the business, but the police power of one state cannot be extended so as to control acts beyond its jurisdiction. Regulation of out-of-state plants might be accomplished by some arrangement between states, such as the suggested reciprocal agreement, whereby renderers in each state would have the same rights in the other states entering into the reciprocal agreement. This would bring within reach of each state the control of inspection and regulation and assure interested dealers in each of the states of similar opportunities. The statute provides for rule making by the board of health, and licensing of renderers. It contains the provision that “it shall be unlawful to transport dead, dissected dead animals or entrails of dead animals on the public highways in this state, except by a renderer licensed under this section and as otherwise provided by section 95.50.” Sec. 146.12(11) (b), Stats.

The real controversy is over the appellants' desire to collect dead animal matter in Wisconsin and transport it to their plant in Illinois. They cannot carry such dead matter over Wisconsin highways unless licensed under this act. They therefore seek a license. The law is that the transportation of such matter “shall not be allowed into other states, except by reciprocal agreement with adjoining states or under rules of the board.” Sec. 146.12(11) (b), Stats.

From the facts disclosed appellants would be entitled to a renderer's license if their rendering plant were located in Wisconsin. Does the fact that only part of their business (that of collecting animal matter) can be carried on in this state preclude them from obtaining a license? They argue that the statute read as a whole contemplates shipment out of the state by licensed renderers and hence the licensing of out-of-state renderers; that the terminology of the act does not distinguish between domestic and foreign renderers; and they insist that this fact demonstrates that the legislature intended to provide for out-of-state transportation through reciprocal agreements and under rules made by the board of health.

[3] The clause of the statute which thus requires consideration provides that transportation “shall not be allowed into other states, except by reciprocal agreement with adjoining states or under rules of the board.” This business includes the collection of dead animal matter, its transportation to and disposal at a rendering plant. The plants in which the rendering takes place are to be constructed and operated according to the terms of the statute. The terms of the statute associate process and place. In the granting of the licenses it is required that both be subject to inspection and regulation. Necessari...