San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1897-05-23

The case was carried to the Court of
Appeals, which reversed the judgment
of the trial court and entered judg-
ment in favor of defendant, holding
compliance with the law of the state
, and the ordinances of the city as a
precedent to recover, whereupon plain
tiff sued out writ of error from this
court. The case was carried to the
Supreme court of the United States,
and for the benefit of those owning
valuable CANNES we give a synopsis
of the opinion recently delivered by
Justice Brown.
This case turns upon the constitu-
tionality of a law of the state of Louis
lana requiring dogs to be placed upon
the assessment rolls, and limiting any
recovery by the owner to the fixed
value by himself for the purpose of tax
alton.
1.-The dog in question was a valuable
Newfoundland bitch, registered in the
American Kennel Clubs stud book,
and was kept by her owner for breed
ing purposes. 1t seems that while fol-
lowing him in a walk upon the streets,
she stopped on the track of the rail-
road company, and being otherwise
engaged for the moment, failed to no.
tice the approach of an electric car,
which was coming toward her at
great speed; and, being, moreover,
heavy in young, and not possessed
of her usual agility. she was caught
by the car and instantly killed. The
Court of Appeals was evidently of the
opinion that he owner, knowing her
condition, should not have taken her
upon a public thoroughfare without
exercising the greatest care and vigil
lance, and that the accident was large
ly due to a want of prudence on his
part before the court, and the opin-
ion was put upon the ground that the
state law was constitutional and valid
as a police regulation to prevent the
indiscriminate owning and breeding
of worthless dogs. The judge also an
nexed the certificate that the decision
was reversed upon the ground that the
law was constitutional and that no
other point was passed upon.
BY the common law as well as by
the law of most, if not all the states,
dogs are so far recognized as property
that an action will lie for their con-
version or injury.
I'm Louisiana there is only a condi-
tional property in dogs. If they are
given in by the owner to the assessor
and placed upon the assessment rolls,
they are entitled to the same legal
guarantees as other personal property,
though in actions for their death or
injury the owner is limited in the
fixed by himself in the last assess
ment. 1t is only under these restric-
tons that dogs are recognized as
property. In addition to this, dogs are
required by the municipal ordinance
of New Orleans to be provided with
a tag, obtained from the treasurer, for
which the owner pays a license tax of
two dollars. While these regulations
are more than ordinarily stringent,
and might be declared unconstitution-
al, if applied to domestic animals gem
orally, there is nothing in them of
which the owner of a dog has any
legal right to complain. 1t is purely
within the discretion of the legislature
to say how far dogs shall be recognized
as property, and under what restric-
tons they shall be permitted 10 roam
the streets. The statute really puts a
premium upon valuable dogs, by Civ
ing them a recognized position and by
permitting the owner TO put his own
estimate upon them.
There IS nothing within this law