Shipman v. State Live-Stock Sanitary Commission

• Decision Date: 18 January 1898
• Citation: 115 Mich. 488,73 N.W. 817
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: SHIPMAN v. STATE LIVE-STOCK SANITARY COMMISSION.

73 N.W. 817

115 Mich. 488

SHIPMAN v. STATE LIVE-STOCK SANITARY COMMISSION.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 18, 1898

Original mandamus proceedings by Ozias W. Shipman against the state live-stock sanitary commission. Writ denied.

Fred A Baker, for relator.

Fred A Maynard, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

GRANT J. (after stating the facts).

The position of the relator is thus stated by his counsel "If the state desires to destroy cattle which are in good health, simply because they cannot stand the tuberculin test, it must compensate the owner for their full market value at the time; that is, just before they are subjected to the test. If the court will permit this case to be tried before a jury, we will bring out, with competent expert witnesses all the known facts in regard to the disease and the tuberculin test so as to enable the court to pass an intelligent judgment on the case, and we firmly believe that the result of such an investigation will show: (1) That tuberculosis is not a contagious or infectious disease, within the meaning of the Michigan live-stock sanitary act. (2) That the tuberculin test is not sufficiently reliable to warrant the killing of cattle without compensation, under the police power of the state. (3) That the tuberculin test does not furnish sufficient proof that the animals tested will ever have the disease or be capable of communicating it, to justify the state in destroying them, except upon the condition that full compensation is made, as for perfectly healthy cattle." The language of the statute is unmistakable. It provides for the destruction of and compensation for diseased, and not sound, cattle. The commission is the sole tribunal to determine whether the animals are diseased, and to ascertain the value, and is to be governed by the value at the date of appraisal. The only appellate jurisdiction provided for by the statute is the governor, whose approval of the action of the commission is necessary. If the governor should refuse to approve the award of the commission, courts could not interfere to compel him to approve the finding. Sutherland v. Governor, 29 Mich. 320; State v. Stone (Mo. Sup.) 25 S.W. 376. It follows that, if the governor should refuse to approve an award directed by this court, the court would be powerless to enforce its judgment. In such cases courts will not interfere. The law has placed this matter in the hands of the commission and the governor. Their action is final. Cicotte v. Wayne Co., 59 Mich. 509,...