The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1880-04-06


not for the Jury TO determine and II was no
error IN the Judge who tried tho cause, 10 ~
instruct the Jury. o. Tho inspection
laws, under the net NJ 1871, did not con
for Jurisdiction and authority upon tho In
speciOr OF animals for Harris county 10 IN
speot and seize cattle driven from Gauda
loupe county through tho county Of llarrf
The Jurisdiction Of TINT inspector WIS by lhi
terms Of The law specially limited u, Th'
court III not orr Ia refusing 10 Instruct Nh,
Jury, that II they believed from tho oyidrne,
ihat the cattle shipped by tho plaintiffs o.
tho defendants rallr0nd, were. lmmollalel,
after their being landed aboard the rallroad
seized aud taken possession of IN llhrrl
county, by tho lawful deputy inspector d
animals Of Harris county, In tho claim and
exercise Of authority 10 Inspect the same, hnc
prevent the shipment out of Harris county
lur Noncompliance with tho law providing
for the inspection Of animals, II wis not the
duty OF the milrond company TO resist tho
domnnd mud seizure by the Inspector and
they must lind for tho defendant, Z, II The
restricted jurisdiction conferred upon thGln
spector OF animals of Harris county
gave him tho right to seize without pro-
cess cattle b0ongingin Harris county II did
not oXlond aud attach 10 cattle neither nctu'
ally belonging In 0f 10, nor claimed 10 belong
m or 10 Harris county. Such right, If NJ
Nil nttinabc derived Ms IL Ia from the statu'
tory authority conferred, must be- exercised
under the sanction Of such judicial process
~ warrants the seizure OF the cll2on's pro-
porty. Official power TO seize without pro-
coss will not BIO extended by implication nor
by n liberal construction Of II statute not
plainly comforting such authority. e. To
bring tho common carrier within The eXcep'
ton under the general rule Of his liability
for non-dclvery IL no relics upon n seizure
Of the property from his custody, II mast be
shown that the proceeding or process under
which II was made by the officer WIS ega
and valid, aud TINT IL empowered him u
make II; for IL II was void be-
cause issuing from court having nc
jurisdiction, or for any other rsason, and con
ferred no such authority, he would be 4
mere tro.passor, and the carrier would BIO no
more obliged to submit 10 his acts under il,
than TO those of any other wr0ng.door,
Hutchinson on Carriers, soc. 400 and author
tiles cited; Kelf VS., Railroad, III Mass, SOL;
Savannah etc. Co. vs.. Wilcox, 4S Ga, 432;
Blivcn W. Railroad, 3G N. T., d03; Edwards
vs.. Transit Co., l0i Mass, l59 0, Where,
notwithstanding, an unlawful seizure ofprop-
erty in the hands OF II common carrier, and
his failure therefore to transport and deliver
It at its point of destination, the measure of
damages for snch failure will not, under all
be determined by treating
such failure MS n conversion Of tho property
by tho carrier, and subiecting him to pay
The value oftbc property, As where tho selz-
are results in n temporary delay in forwarding
On the property, and the owner of il
being present and having it in his power to
ship ut once by the release from the seizure
Of one half or more Of the property seized
and which is rendered to him for that pur-
pose by him who has seized il, and he re-
fuses to accept the offer or to allow n part to
DO shipped unless the whole shall be de-
ivered to him, in such case il was error in
he court to refuse the charge asked by the
defendant in this case, under evidence tend
ng TO show such state of case 10 the ello I
that il part of the cattle were taken posses.
lion of to make the inspection, but were the
next day rendered to be returned TO plain
.ill, and could have been obtained by him,
but he refused to secure them, the jury
should only allow such damages as would
have resulted if he had received them" 10.
The true rule applicable to the case is that
The defendant is liable for the direct and
consequences of the wrong
Tul yielding of the possession of the plain
Iif's property to the inspector of animals,
taking into consideration all the circum-
stances attending and Immediately fol-
lowing the seizure; ana that if the plaintiff
had the option or means afforded him of
shipping to Galveston any part of said cat
tie, and failed or refused to do so, or TO nc
copt them, that the original default of the
railroad company in surrcndering the cattle,
will not as TO such losses as the plaintiff
might thus have avoided by such shipment,
be further answerable than as respects TIE
additional expenses and losses which would
have been consequent to him; nevertheless,
if he had even accepted the cattle which were
flowing from the original default
Of the defendant. II. The rule applied by
the charge of the court, holding the defend
ant answerable for the value of such of the
cattle seized as were not intended to be, nor
we're offered to be reeas to the plaintiff
was correct, requiring no modification mol
qualification.