Mowery v. Town of Salisbury
| Decision Date | 31 January 1880 |
| Parties | GEORGE MOWERY v. TOWN OF SALISBURY. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
CIVIL
ACTION for Damages commenced before a justice of the peace and tried on appeal at Fall Term, 1879, of ROWAN Superior Court, before Gilmer, J.
An ordinance of defendant corporation imposed a tax of one dollar upon all dogs running at large on the streets, and required the owners to put collars and badges on their dogs as evidence of the payment of the tax. The plaintiff's dog was found running at large without a badge and was shot and killed by an officer of the town in pursuance of the requirements of the ordinance. And thereupon the plaintiff brought this suit against the town commissioners to recover damages. The court being of opinion that the action of defendant in killing the dog was warranted by the charter and ordinances of the town, gave judgment accordingly and the plaintiff appealed.
Mr. Kerr Craige, for plaintiff .
Mr. J. M. McCorkle, for defendant .
The act incorporating “the commissioners of the town of Salisbury” confers upon the commissioners in express terms authority “to regulate the manner in which dogs may be kept in said town.” In the exercise of this power the following ordinance was passed:
“The chief of police shall have badges prepared which must be placed upon the collars of all dogs running upon the streets: the owners of dogs shall register the same with the clerk, and upon the payment to the clerk of one dollar for each dog, and two dollars for each bitch, shall be furnished with a properly numbered badge; and after the 15th day of July of each and every year, all dogs or bitches found running at large in the streets without the proper badge shall be killed.”
The plaintiff's dog was found running at large in violation of the ordinance and was shot and killed. The only point presented in the appeal and argued before us is the validity of the ordinance.
Property in dogs is recognized by the law and protected against wanton and needless injury, and a civil action for damages may be maintained by the owner. Dodson v. Mock, 4 Dev. & Bat., 146; Perry v. Phipps, 10 Ired., 259. Yet they are not the subject of larceny. State v. Holder, 81 N. C., 527.
They may become nuisances in cities and populous towns if permitted without restraint to roam about the streets, and dangerous even during the summer months when rabies prevails. Accordingly, by a general law for the government of towns, it is enacted that “if any person residing in town shall have therein any dog and shall not return it for taxation, and shall fail to pay the tax according to law, the commissioners, at their option, may fine the person so failing double the tax, or may treat such dog as a nuisance and order his destruction.” Bat. Rev., ch. 111, § 27. Again, as indicating a public policy in regard to this class of domestic...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daniels v. Homer
...the costs and penalty. Here the state made the penalty the forfeiture of the article used in violation of the act In Mowery v. Salisbury, 82 N. C. 175, a town ordinance was sustained which made the penalty for failure to pay the tax on a dog the right to kill the dog. At common law any pers......
-
Daniels v. Homer
...tax, but a license for the privilege of keeping them. Sentell v. N. O. R. R., 166 U.S. 698, 17 S.Ct. 693, 41 L.Ed. 1169; Mowery v. Salisbury, 82 N.C. 175. We held, Parish v. Cedar Co., 133 N.C. 438, 45 S.E. 768, 98 Am. St. Rep. 718, that an act which provided that, when the owner of swamp l......
-
Hofer v. Carson
...People ex rel. Renshaw v. Gillespie, 25 A.D. 91, 48 N.Y.S. 882; People ex rel. Westbay v. Delaney, 73 Misc. 5, 130 N.Y.S. 833; Mowery v. Salisbury, 82 N.C. 175; State v. Clifton, 152 N.C. 800, 67 S.E. 751, 28 R. A. (N. S.) 673; Litchville v. Hanson, 19 N.D. 672, 124 N.W. 1119, Ann. Cas. 191......
-
Newell v. Green
...for each female dog." The plaintiffs contend that the act is unconstitutional and void. The identical question was presented in Mowery v. Salisbury, 82 N. C. 175, when the court, Smith, C. J., delivering the opinion, held: "A statute empowering town authorities to require the payment of a t......