Case Name: SERRES et al. v. HAMMOND, Sheriff, et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-05-29
Citations: 214 S.W. 596
Docket Number: No. 480
Parties: SERRES et al. v. HAMMOND, Sheriff, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 214
Pages: 596–598

Head Matter:
SERRES et al. v. HAMMOND, Sheriff, et al.
(No. 480.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.
May 29, 1919.
On Motion for Rehearing, July 7, 1919.)
1. Animals <§=29—Creation oe Live Stock Board—Statute—Validity.
Rev. St. 1911, art. 7312 et seq. (creating live stock sanitary board), as amended by Acts 35th Leg. (Reg. Sess.) c. GO, and Acts 35th Leg. (1st Called Sess.) c. 12.(Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. Supp. 1918, art. 7314 et seq.), is constitutional.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Constitutional Law <§=>62—Tick Eradication — Delegation oe Power — Live Stock Sanitary Commission.
Acts 35th Leg. c. 60, § 19 (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. Supp. 1918, art. 7314n), as to dipping of cattle to eradicate fever ticks, is not subject to the objection that it attempts to delegate and confer upon the live stock sanitary commission legislative authority and discretion.
3. Constitutional Law <§=>278(1)—Eminent Domain <§=>2(2)—Due Process—Compensation—Tick Eradication.
Acts 35th Leg. c. 60, § 19 (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. Supp. 1918, art. 7314n), as to dipping of cattle to eradicate fever ticks, is not subject to objection that it attempts to vest in the sheriff, acting under direction of the live stock sanitary commission, authority to enter upon plaintiff’s premises and seize and mistreat plaintiff’s cattle without due process of law and without compensation for, or protection against, injuries likely to result in such seizure and treatment.
Appeal from District Court, Harris County; J. D. Harvey, Judge.
Suit by H. Serres and others against M. F. Hammond and others. Erom an order dissolving, temporary injunction, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Love & Bouts, of Houston, for appellants.
R. W. Franklin, E‘. T. Branch, Fred R. Switzer, and H. H. Cooper, all of Houston, for appellees.

Opinion:
WALKER, J.
The appellants filed their suit praying for injunction to enjoin appel-lees from going on the premises of appellants and dipping appellants' cattle, and praying further relief. The trial court granted a temporary injunction, and upon motion of appellees the trial court set' aside the order granting the temporary injunction and dissolved the same, and from this order the appellants appealed, and upon making the bond required the order dissolving the injunction was suspended pending appeal, and the matter is here properly on appeal from the order dissolving the injunction.
This appeal involves the validity of the statute creating the live stock sanitary commission (article 7312 et seq. R. S. 1911, and as amended by the regular session of the 35th Legislature, c. 60, p. 107, and the First Called Session of the Both Legislature, c. 12, p. 14 [Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. Supp. 1918, art. 7314 et seq.]), and this is the only question involved in this appeal.
Before the filing of this suit án election had been held pursuant to section 7 of the Act of 1917, c. 60, p. Ill (article 7314e), in Harris county, and such election had resulted in favor of "tick eradication in Harris county, Texas," and pursuant to the election the live stock sanitary commission of Texas started the work of tick eradication in the said county, and the various owners of said cattle dipiied and treated several thousand head. The appellants failed and refused to dip said cattle, and upon notice given to them by the said commission and its agent on May 29, 1918, to comply with said notice, appellee M. F. Hammond, sheriff, pursuant to section 19 of the act of 1917 (article 7314n), was about to dip the appellants' cattle when stopped by this suit.
The constitutionality of this law has been before our courts before, and it has been fully sustained in Brazeale v. Strength, County Judge, 196 S. W. 247; Mulkey v. State (Cr. App.) 201 S. W. 991. We fully approve the conclusions reached in this case.
The action of the court in dissolving this injunction is in all thngs affirmed.
<&s»Ifor other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes