Bown v. Walling

Supreme Court

Bown v. Walling

204 U.S. 320, 27 S. Ct. 292, 51 L. Ed. 503, 1907 U.S. LEXIS 1497

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 4, 1907

Docket81

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 204 U.S. 320 (Bown v. Walling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bown v. Walling, 204 U.S. 320, 27 S. Ct. 292, 51 L. Ed. 503, 1907 U.S. LEXIS 1497 (1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice McKenna

delivered the- opinion of the court.

This action was brought in the Probate Court in. and for Elmore County, State of Idaho', 'for the sum of two hundred dollars’ damages sustained by defendant in error by the violation by plaintiffs in error of sections 1210, 1211 of the Revised Statutes' of Idaho. The amended complaint alleged that the offense was committed by plaintiffs,in error by wrongfully' and negligently permitting and allowing their sheep to -graze *321 within two miles of the 'dwelling house of defendant in error and upon the Government-, lands around his premises. The defense, set .up' by demurrer, was, as iri Bacon v. Walker, ante, p. 311, that those sections were void,under the due.process and equality clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The trial couft rendered judgment for' the defendant in error, which was affirmed by the District Court for Elmore County and by the Supreme Court of the State. 9 Idaho, 740.

The case was argued with Bacon v. Walker et al., and on the authority of that case the judgment is

Affirmed.

-.Me. Justice Brewer and-Mr. Justice Peckham dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice McKenna

delivered the- opinion of the court.

This action was brought in the Probate Court in. and for Elmore County, State of Idaho', 'for the sum of two hundred dollars’ damages sustained by defendant in error by the violation by plaintiffs in error of sections 1210, 1211 of the Revised Statutes' of Idaho. The amended complaint alleged that the offense was committed by plaintiffs,in error by wrongfully' and negligently permitting and allowing their sheep to -graze *321 within two miles of the 'dwelling house of defendant in error and upon the Government-, lands around his premises. The defense, set .up' by demurrer, was, as iri Bacon v. Walker, ante, p. 311, that those sections were void,under the due.process and equality clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The trial couft rendered judgment for' the defendant in error, which was affirmed by the District Court for Elmore County and by the Supreme Court of the State. 9 Idaho, 740.

The case was argued with Bacon v. Walker et al., and on the authority of that case the judgment is

Affirmed.

-.Me. Justice Brewer and-Mr. Justice Peckham dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 U.S. 320, 27 S. Ct. 292, 51 L. Ed. 503, 1907 U.S. LEXIS 1497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bown-v-walling-scotus-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack