Robinson & Reynolds v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
| Decision Date | 13 April 1922 |
| Docket Number | 12924. |
| Citation | 112 S.E. 389,28 Ga.App. 484 |
| Parties | ROBINSON & REYNOLDS v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied May 23, 1922.
Syllabus by the Court.
"Whenever any inspector or assistant inspector of the Bureau of Animal Industry shall issue a certificate showing that such officer had inspected any cattle * * * about to be shipped * * * from such locality to another, * * * and had found them free from Texas or splenetic fever, * * * such animals, when so inspected and certified, may be shipped * * * into * * * any state * * * without further inspection." U.S. Comp. St § 8698.
The expenses of the second dipping and the losses on the cattle incident thereto should have been allowed to plaintiffs after determination by the jury, and the direction of the verdict against such allowance was erroneous.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Act Cong. Feb. 2, 1903 (U. S. Comp. St. §§ 8698-8700), providing that, when an inspector issues a certificate of inspection of cattle about to be shipped, they may be transported into or through any other state without further inspection, was not repealed by Act Cong. March 3, 1905 (U. S. Comp. St. §§ 8701-8705), relative to quarantine, and the transportation of cattle, etc., from any quarantined state or territory.
If the rules and regulations of the Department of Agriculture under Act Cong. March 3, 1905 (U. S. Comp. St. §§ 8701-8705) relative to quarantine, etc., are in conflict with Act Cong Feb. 2, 1903 (U. S. Comp. St. §§ 8698-8700), providing for the interstate shipment of cattle on an inspector's certificate, the act prevails over such rules and regulations, as it was not within the power of the Secretary of Agriculture to bring within the penal provisions of the act matters not criminal under the terms of the Statutes.
Error from Superior Court, Seminole County; W. C. Worrill, Judge.
Action by Robinson & Reynolds against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiffs for an insufficient amount, and they bring error. Reversed.
Robinson & Reynolds, at Donalsonville, in Seminole, formerly Decatur, county, Ga., delivered to the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company 40 head of cattle for transportation to Montgomery, Ala., and there delivered at the stockyards to Tatum, Embry & Company. Robinson & Reynolds were not authorities on tick eradication or quarantine regulations which were in force in said county at the time of this shipment, the same being carried on co-operatively by the county, state, and federal authorities. At Donalsonville the federal government had an officer, a veterinarian, in charge of such work, in whom, under the federal act, was duly vested all the administrative and quasi judicial duties incident to the enforcement of the statute on quarantine and tick eradication and the enforcement of the rules and regulations passed by the Department of Agriculture under and by virtue of the authority vested in it by the statute. The plaintiffs presented the said cattle to this officer, who, after due inspection of the same, issued therefor what is known as a free certificate, which was attached to the waybill, the material portions of said certificate being as follows:
This certificate is a part of the brief of the evidence in the case. The cattle, after having been duly inspected, were delivered to the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, as above stated, for the purpose of delivery to the consignees at their stock pens in Montgomery, Ala. Decatur county (or Seminole county), from which these cattle were shipped, was a quarantined area under the regulations as stated aforesaid of the government and its official in charge. The cattle, after having been delivered to the defendant company, and without exposure, according to the evidence, to an infection, were transported to Montgomery and there held for seven days by the company, and the company, without consulting the official in charge of the quarantine regulations at Montgomery, instead of delivering the cattle into the free or nonquarantined pens at Montgomery, upon their arrival at Montgomery, to which they had been consigned by the plaintiffs, had the cattle dipped for tick eradication in Montgomery under the view of the law apparently entertained by the railroad company that the first dipping of the cattle, which had taken place at Donalsonville, when they were shipped, was not sufficient, and that the law required a second or final dipping. The plaintiffs claim that during the seven days, while the cattle were being held for the second dipping by the railroad, the market value of cattle generally had gone down, and also sued to recover certain items of expense for feeding and dipping the cattle a second time, claiming that the second dipping was not necessary, and that the expenses connected therewith were illegally incurred, and that the plaintiffs were damaged in the sum of $523.12. There is no dispute in the record or the brief of the evidence as to the correctness of the items of expense incurred in feeding and dipping the cattle at Montgomery, provided the railroad was authorized to hold the cattle for the seven days without delivery and have them dipped a second time. In other words, the holding of these cattle for the second dipping, if required by law and the regulations of the Bureau of Animal Industry, would give the plaintiffs no claim against the railroad for this work. The controlling question in the case is whether the holding of the cattle by the railroad company at Montgomery, Ala., and giving to them a second dipping before the delivery of them into the nonquarantined pens at Montgomery, to which they were duly consigned, was proper under the law and the regulations of the Bureau of Animal Industry. The learned judge who tried the case entertained the view that the second dipping was necessary and proper, and was in accordance with the regulations of the department, and at the conclusion of the testimony for the plaintiff in error sustained a motion asking a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in error in the sum of $20.50, which was the value of one of the cows killed in the pens at Montgomery, together with all of the costs of the court. The plaintiffs were dissatisfied with this direction of a verdict, and filed a motion for a new trial, claiming that the damages incurred was the sum of $523.12, and insisting that the second dipping was wholly unwarranted by the law and the regulations of the department, and that the expenses connected therewith was an unjust imposition upon the plaintiffs as the owners of the cattle. This motion was denied, and the judgment is here for review.
W. L. Bryan, of Donalsonville, for plaintiff in error.
Rich & Rawls, of Donalsonville, and Pope & Bennet, of Albany, for defendant in error.
HILL, J. (after stating the facts as above).
The learned counsel for both the plaintiff in error and the defendant in error argued the case at great length. After giving the questions involved a very careful consideration, this court is of the opinion that the trial judge erred in directing a verdict for the plaintiff. We think, under the law and regulations of the department, that the railroad company at Montgomery was not authorized to make the second dipping of the said cattle, and, without following the learned counsel fully into the arguments which they have submitted, this court is of the opinion that the case is controlled by certain regulations of the Department of Animal Industry on the subject of tick eradication.
1. We think that the certificate issued by the inspector at the point of shipment at Donalsonville, showed a sufficient dipping of the cattle, and rendered unnecessary the second dipping at Montgomery. In 32 Statutes at Large of the United States, p. 791, among other provisions occurs the following:
"Whenever any inspector or assistant inspector, of the Bureau of Animal Industry shall issue a certificate showing that such officer had inspected any cattle, or other live stock which were about to be shipped, driven, or transported from such locality to another, as above stated, and had found them free from Texas or splenetic fever infection, pleuropneumonia, foot-and-mouth disease, or any other infectious, contagious, or communicable disease, such animals, so inspected and certified, may be shipped, driven, or transported from such place into and through any state or territory, including the Indian Territory, and into and through the District of Columbia, or they may be exported from the United States without further inspection or the exaction of fees of any kind, except such as may at any time be ordered or exacted by the Secretary of Agriculture; and all such animals shall at all times be under the control and supervision of the Bureau of Animal Industry of the Agricultural Department for the purposes of such inspection." U.S. Comp. St. § 8698.
It is admitted in this case that the inspector at Donalsonville after making an inspection of the cattle in question, made the certificate set out above, and that the cattle were shipped thereunder to Montgomery. This section plainly asserts that, after cattle are shipped from tick eradication area, and are certified as free by the agent of the Bureau, that any future inspection shall be by the inspection and under the control of the Department of Agriculture. It provides that animals which have been inspected by the inspector or the assistant inspector...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reynolds v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co
... 28 Ga.App. 484 112 S.E. 389 ROBINSON & REYNOLDS ... v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. (No. 12924.) Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2. April 13, 1922. Rehearing Denied May 23, ... ...