State ex rel. Torrance v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.

81 P. 212, 71 Kan. 613, 1905 Kan. LEXIS 193
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJune 10, 1905
DocketNo. 14,185
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 81 P. 212 (State ex rel. Torrance v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Torrance v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co., 81 P. 212, 71 Kan. 613, 1905 Kan. LEXIS 193 (kan 1905).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

William R. Smith, J.:

This was a suit brought by the state of Kansas, on the relation of the county attorney of Cowley county, to enjoin the Missouri Pacific Railway Company from maintaining a nuisance, in violation of the live-stock sanitary laws of the state. The petition was filed July 7, 1904.

For several years the railway company has main[614]*614tained a cattle shipping-station named Davidson on its line of road in Cowley county, situated about two miles north of the Indian Territory line. From its stockyards at that place the company laid out and maintained a lane, bounded on either side by a wire fence, extending two miles south to the Kansas state line, and opening into a pasture in the Indian Territory. This passageway was maintained for the purpose of allowing prospective shippers to drive herds of cattle from south of the quarantine line into Kansas for shipment. Testimony was introduced at the trial tending to show that herds of Southern cattle were driven up the lane, including cows to coax the calves along; that the cows were permitted to wander back to the Indian country after the calves had been loaded on cars for shipment; that splenic fever is caused by ticks which fall from Southern cattle and either fasten themselves on native animals or hatch out small ticks that do; that Southern cattle driven up this lane had communicated fever to native cattle the year before the suit was tried. None of the cattle driven into this state was ever'inspected, nor any bill of health issued in respect to them. It was shown that 450 head .of Southern cattle were shipped from Davidson in June, 1904, over the line of defendant in error, consigned to the National stock-yards at East St. Louis, Ill.

The gravamen of the complaint against the railway company appears in the following extract from the petition :

“Defendant, if permitted to continue the introduction of said cattle into Kansas from the infected districts aforesaid, in the manner aforesaid, is liable, by reason of the escape of the said cattle through the fences of said lane, and by coming in contact with the native cattle along and adjacent to said lane, to infect the native cattle of that immediate vicinity with Texas fever, and spread and scatter the same throughout the county, to the great damage and detriment of the citizens of this county, by reason of which said railway [615]*615company, in the manner and form aforesaid, has been maintaining, and is now maintaining, and threatened, and is about to continue, a public nuisance within the county of Cowley and state of Kansas.”

A trial before the court resulted in a judgment favorable to defendant. The state has prosecuted proceedings in .error. The following sections of the statute have application to the question involved:

“All cattle being at or brought from any point south of the south line of the state of Kansas, and carrying Boophilus bovis, or Southern ticks, are deemed to be infected with and capable of communicating Texas, splenic or Spanish fever, and such cattle shall not be shipped or transported into the state of Kansas except for immediate slaughter, and then only under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the live-stock sanitary commission.
“It shall be Unlawful for any person or persons to bring, drive or transport any cattle into any county of the state of Kansas, except for immediate slaughter, as provided in the preceding section, from any point south of the south line of Kansas, without having first caused such animal or animals to be inspected and passed under certificate of health by the live-stock sanitary commission of this state or some inspector thereof; and any person or persons violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not less than thirty days nor more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.” (Gen. Stat. 1801, §§7451, 7452.)

Acting under the provisions of section 7434 of the General Statutes of 1901 the live-stock sanitary commission determined that quarantine regulations were necessary to prevent infectious diseases among domestic animals, and notified the governor of the fact. The latter, on June 2, 1904, issued a proclamation that cattle brought from points south of the thirty-seventh parallel of north latitude, or west of the west line of Kansas, were infected with, and capable of [616]*616communicating, splenic or Spanish fever, or a disease known as itch or mange, to Kansas herds when imported into the state, and establishing a quarantine against all such cattle, and that “all cattle hereafter brought, shipped or transported through the state of Kansas shall be admitted only under such rules and regulations as are, or shall hereafter be, provided and adopted by the live-stock sanitary commission of this state.” Rule No. 8 of the live-stock sanitary commission reads:

“Any persons desiring to avail themselves of the passage of cattle for slaughter purposes from points south of the south line of Kansas, without inspection and the payment of fees, may do so by consigning them to the quarantine pens of whatever market they may be destined, but under no condition shall they be unloaded in native chutes or native pens of Kansas unless they are accompanied by a certificate of health issued by a Kansas inspector. Also cattle destined for points beyond the limits of Kansas may unload for feed and rest without state inspection or payment of fees at any shipping-yards on line of road on which they are being shipped, provided each and every shipment is accompanied by a certificate of health issued by an agent of the bureau of animal industry; otherwise shall be accompanied by a certificate issued by a Kansas inspector.”

Another rule of the commission provides that each car carrying cattle from the infected area into or through the state must have a placard attached thereto stating in bold letters that “this car contains Southern cattle,” and the way-bill stubs shall have marked plainly on the face thereof the words “Southern cattle.”

It will be observed that section 7451 of the statutes, swpra, declares cattle brought from south of the south line of Kansas and carrying Southern ticks are deemed to be infected with and capable of communicating Texas, splenic or Spanish fever, and such cattle shall not be shipped or transported into the state, except for immediate slaughter, “and then only under such rules [617]*617and regulations as may be prescribed by the live-stock sanitary commission.”

The next section of the statutes prohibits the driving or transporting of any cattle into any county of the state, except for immediate slaughter, “as provided in the preceding section,” from any point south of the south line of Kansas, without an inspection and the obtaining of a certificate of health from the sanitary commission or some inspector thereof.

. Reading together the two sections of the statute last referred to, it seems clear that cattle transported into the state for immediate slaughter cannot be brought here for such purpose unless permitted by the rules and regulations of the live-stock sanitary commission. Rule No. 8, supra, has reference to transporting by railroad.

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

Related

Mintz v. Baldwin
2 F. Supp. 700 (N.D. New York, 1933)
Rowland v. Morris
111 S.E. 389 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
81 P. 212, 71 Kan. 613, 1905 Kan. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-torrance-v-missouri-pacific-railway-co-kan-1905.