National Fertilizer Co. v. Lambert
Decision Date | 07 December 1891 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Parties | NATIONAL FERTILIZER CO. v. LAMBERT et al. |
Langhorne & Miller, for complainant.
R. C Harrison and Lloyd & Wood, for respondents.
This is a suit in equity to restrain respondents from infringing upon the exclusive rights and privileges of complainant under what is commonly known and designated as the 'dead animal contract.' The board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco, on December 11, 1882, passed the following resolution, viz.:
'Resolved, that the owners of any animal that shall die within the city limits within the said period of twenty years from and after the 1st day of December, A.D. 1882, save such as shall be killed for human food, or the person in whose possession such animal shall be at the time of its death, shall, immediately upon such death, notify the said Charles Alpers or his assigns of such death, and of the place where such carcass may be found, by depositing written notice thereof in one of the boxes above provided for, or by personal notification, unless such owner or person shall himself, or by his immediate servant or employe, and not otherwise, remove and dispose of the same, in such manner as not to become a nuisance, within twelve hours next after such death shall occur; provided, that the term 'servant or employe,' herein employed, shall in no manner be construed so as to include a contractor or other person not actually employed by and under the direct supervision and control of such owner or person.
'Resolved, that said Charles Alpers or his assigns shall receive no compensation whatever from the city and county for any such removals; but said city and county, in full consideration thereof, shall protect the said Charles Alpers and his assigns in the exclusive rights and privileges to make all such removals by all such orders and resolutions as may be lawfully made in that behalf.
'Resolved, that it shall be the duty of all health and police officers of said city and county, upon being informed of any such death, to immediately notify said Charles Alpers or his assigns personally, or by depositing a notice thereof, as herein provided.'
And on December 26, 1882, in pursuance of said resolution, enacted the following order, viz.'
'Concerning the removal of dead animals from the city limits.
'Whereas, on the 11th day of December, A.D. 1882, the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco passed resolution No. 16,013 1/2, (New Series,) giving to Charles Alpers and his assigns the exclusive privilege of removing the carcasses of dead animals from the city limits, so that the same may not become a nuisance, for the period of twenty years from and after the 1st day of December, A.D. 1882, which resolution was duly approved on the 15th day of December, 1882: Now, therefore, the people of the city and county of San Francisco do ordain as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gardner v. City of Dallas
...679, 683, 49 Am.St.Rep. 222, cited with approval in City of Breckenridge v. McMullen (Tex. Civ.App.) 258 S.W. 1099; National Fertilizer Co. v. Lambert (C.C.) 48 F. 458; Spencer v. Medford, 129 Or. 333, 276 P. 1114; Iler v. Ross, 64 Neb. 710, 90 N.W. 869, 57 L.R.A. 895, 97 Am.St.Rep. 676; Lo......
-
Dreyfus v. Boone
...in any inhabitant of a city to remove and dispose of the matter accumulated in his unsewered privy. 199 U.S. 306; Id. 325; 115 U.S. 683; 48 F. 458; 32 F. 403; Wall. 57; 1 S.W. 606; 52 Mo. 177; 28 L.R.A. 679; 60 S.W. 355; 62 N.W. 41; 17 Am. Dec. 351; 126 F. 29, 39; 27 L.R.A. 540, note; 28 Cy......
-
California Reduction Co. v. Sanitary Reduction Works
... ... Alpers v. City and County of San Francisco (C.C.) 32 ... F. 503; National Fertilizer Co. v. Lambert (C.C.) 48 ... F. 458, and in the Slaughter-House cases, 16 Wall. 36, ... ...
-
City of Spokane v. Carlson
...State v. Fisher, 52 Mo. 174; River Rendering Co. v. Behr, 7 Mo.App. 345; Alpers v. San Francisco, C.C., 32 F. 503; National Fertilizer Co. v. Lambert, C.C., 48 F. 458; Ex parte Zhizhuzza, 147 Cal. 328, 81 P. The ordinance in that case was sustained as against a contention that it deprived t......