Warren v. Cameron

• Decision Date: 05 April 1917
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 959
• Citation: 74 So. 949,199 Ala. 511
• Parties: WARREN v. CAMERON et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

74 So. 949

199 Ala. 511

WARREN v. CAMERON et al.

8 Div. 959

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 5, 1917

Appeal from Chancery Court, Morgan County; James E. Horton, Jr. Chancellor.

Bill by Thomas H. Warren against W.W. Cameron, individually and as State Live Stock Cattle Inspector and Quarantine Officer for Morgan County, and others, seeking a temporary injunction restraining respondent individually and as such officer from the further dipping of orator's cattle or infering with him in the disposition of said cattle, until a hearing of the cause, and that on a final hearing the injunction be made permanent. The chancellor denied the application for a temporary injunction, and complainant appeals. Affirmed.

The bill alleges that the respondents are assuming authority to enforce the tick eradication laws, as prescribed by the state live stock sanitary board in Morgan county, by requiring cattle owners to bring their cattle to certain specified dipping vats, and dip same therein on dates named, and every two weeks thereafter until relieved by the particular respondent in charge at each vat. It is alleged that these respondents are acting only under authority claimed under appointment by the court of county commissioners of Morgan county, that they are acting without authority at law, and that their appointment is void. The bill describes the process of dipping, and that the dipping solution in the various vats has become, by the negligence and mismanagement of inspectors, excessively poisonous and dangerous and destructive to cattle; that complainant has about 20 head of cattle, including 12 milk cows, from which he derives his living, and which, for several years, have been free from ticks, or any exposure thereto, as have also the stalls lots, and pastures in which they are kept. Under the requisition of respondent Blackmon, complainant produced his cattle in April, 1916, and they were subjected to dipping then, and at intervals three or four times thereafter whereby they have suffered serious and increasing injuries and have fallen off 50 per cent. in their milk. The bill then alleges:

"That the injuries received by said cattle are due proximately to the negligence, and the gross and wanton carelessness of the said W.T. Blackmon in and about the manner in which he executed the process of dipping, and in preparing the solution for the dipping of said cattle, and his said cattle were poisoned by taking into their stomachs the poisonous matter of which said solution was composed."

The gravamen of the bill is:

"That your orator has reasonable apprehension that his said cattle will be further injured and probably fatally injured should he be further required to have them dipped under the supervision of the said Blackmon, or any one of the said respondent inspectors."

It is also alleged that complainant protested against the dipping of his said cattle after the injuries resulting from the first said dipping, but the said Blackmon, under threats of arrest and imprisonment, compelled him to bring his said cattle to be dipped. The allegation is also made in the bill that each and all of said respondents are insolvent, and unable to respond in...