Williams v. Finley, 4897
| Decision Date | 18 October 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 4897,4897 |
| Citation | 222 P.2d 997,71 Ariz. 27 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. FINLEY et al. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Norman S. Herring, of Douglas, for appellant.
John L. Sullivan, Atty. Gen., Burr Sutter, Asst. Atty. Gen., Perry M. Ling, Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief.
Appellant brought this class action in the Superior Court asking for a declaratory judgment, as to the applicability of certain statutes, hereinafter enumerated, that have to do with inspection of live stock brought through the port of entry at Douglas, Arizona, against defendants who are members and employees of the Arizona Live Stock Sanitary Board.
Appellant is a resident of Cochise County, and a cattle grower and an importer of cattle from Mexico. The controversy arose between this appellant and the appellees because of the claim by the latter that the laws of Arizona require them to inspect all such cattle brought over the International Boundary Line, irrespective of their ultimate destination.
The complaint alleges three different ways by which cattle are imported from Mexico to the United States, and in brief they are:
(1) Importations from Mexico in bond when the cattle are intended to be returned to Mexico. It happens that railroad facilities in Mexico are either non-existent in certain areas or not sufficient to meet the needs for transporting cattle in that Republic to other parts of Mexico and hence the use of highways or railroads, entering United States, to carry said live stock for delivery at a different place in Mexico, is imperative.
(2) Cattle imported from Mexico, destined for points in United States other than Arizona.
(3) Cattle imported from Mexico, destined for some point within Arizona.
It is appellant's claim that U. S. Customs Officials and the U. S. Dept. of Agriculture are in charge while the cattle are driven to the Southern Pacific stock pens, near Douglas, Arizona, three-fourths of a mile from the International Boundary Line; that while so in charge, the cattle are dipped and weighed and placed on board the Southern Pacific cattle cars at said pens; that the cattle are at all times moving in either foreign or interstate commerce from the time they are delivered to the U. S. Officials until they reach the declared destination.
A motion to dismiss was filed by appellees, alleging a 'failure of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.'
The trial court, in granting the motion and entering its order of dismissal, stated: 'That the complaint wholly fails to state a cause of action against the defendants and that sections 50-304, 50-305, 50-306 and 50-307, A.C.A. 1939, do apply to cattle of plaintiff and others similarly situated, imported from Mexico.'
The four sections of our Code involved, contain the following matter:
50-304: 'The inspectors shall inspect for health and for marks and brands, at the railway loading station, at the place of exit from the state, and at all places where live stock are gathered to be sold transported or driven off their range for any purpose whatsoever. * * *'
50-305: 'Inspections * * * shall be made in such a manner as to enable the inspector to personally see and inspect each and every mark and brand, and record same.'
50-306: '(a) Before any neat animals, horses, mules or asses are slaughtered, sold or driven or conveyed from their accustomed range, or driven or conveyed * * * from a pasture or other place where they have been kept, such animals must be inspected for health, brands and marks immediately before such drive or conveyance.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dunn
...be limited, qualified, or impeded to any extent by state action. Id. at 56-57, 53 S.Ct. at 509, 77 L.Ed. at 1028; Williams v. Finley, 71 Ariz. 27, 30, 222 P.2d 997, 999 (1950). A.R.S. § 13-3408(A)(7), prohibiting the importation of narcotics, is contained in Title 13, Chapter 34 of the Ariz......