Whitfield v. City of Paris
| Decision Date | 26 April 1892 |
| Citation | 19 S.W. 566 |
| Parties | WHITFIELD v. CITY OF PARIS. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by Sarah Whitfield against the city of Paris for personal injuries. A demurrer to the petition was sustained, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Dudley & Moore, for appellant. A. P. Park, for appellee.
This appeal is prosecuted from a judgment rendered by the district court of Lamar county in favor of appellee. The appellant sued appellee to recover for personal injuries inflicted upon her by one Beatis, in shooting at an unmuzzled dog, in the attempted enforcement of an ordinance of the city of Paris forbidding dogs to run at large. The correctness of the action of the trial court in sustaining a general demurrer to the plaintiff's petition is the only question to be determined. This petition, as stated by appellant, alleged the incorporation of the city under the general incorporation act of the state of Texas, being title 17 of the Revised Statutes, entitled "Cities and Towns." That the city had power, by its charter, to appoint policemen, prescribe their duties and compensation, and discontinue and remove any such policemen, at the pleasure of the city council. That the city also, by its charter, had power to tax, regulate, or restrain and prohibit the running at large of dogs, and to authorize their destruction when at large contrary to ordinance. That in July, 1888, the said city, by and through its city council, passed an ordinance prohibiting thereafter the running at large of dogs, without being muzzled, within its corporate limits, between the 1st of July and the 20th of September of each year, and requiring and making it the duty of the city marshal and any policeman to kill any such dog when found so running at large. That said city, by and through the city council, employed and appointed one Thomas Beatis to kill dogs under said ordinance, agreeing to pay him a certain stipulated sum per month for his services, the said Beatis then being in the employ and subject to the orders of the city. That, at the time and after the passage of said ordinance, the said city, acting by and through the city council, made it the duty of and ordered the said Beatis to go upon the public streets, alleys, and highways of the city and kill all dogs found running at large without being muzzled. That about the 24th of August, 1888, while the said Beatis was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leibowitz v. City of Mineola, Tex.
...writ dism'd w.o.j.); Hargrove v. City of Rotan, 553 S.W.2d 246, 247 (Tex.Civ. App.-Eastland 1977, no writ) (citing Whitfield v. City of Paris, 84 Tex. 431, 19 S.W. 566 (1892)). Defendants assert that the Animal Control Ordinance in its entirety, including the barking ordinance and restraint......
-
Dillard v. Austin Independent School Dist.
...not liable for the acts of public servants. E.g., Lowe v. Texas Tech Univ., 540 S.W.2d 297, 298 (Tex.1976); Whitfield v. City of Paris, 84 Tex. 431, 19 S.W. 566, 567 (1892) (doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply against the state); City of Galveston v. Posnainsky, 62 Tex. 118, 125 ......
-
Parson v. Texas City
...v. Ware, 120 Tex. 456, 40 S.W.2d 57; Barnes v. City of Waco, Tex.Civ.App., 262 S.W. 1081, writ refused; Whitfield v. City of Paris, 84 Tex. 431, 19 S.W. 566, 15 L.R.A. 783; City of Houston v. Shilling, Tex.Sup., 240 S.W.2d 1010, 26 A.L.R.2d 935. Although there has been strong dissent from t......
-
Hofer v. Carson
... ... Affirmed ... The ... plaintiff, a resident and taxpayer of the city of Salem, ... brought these proceedings by the filing of a complaint in ... which he ... 526; State v. Clifton, 152 N.C. 800, 67 ... S.E. 751, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 673; Whitfield v ... Paris, 84 Tex. 431, 19 S.W. 566, 15 L. R. A. 783, 31 Am ... St. Rep. 69; ... ...