Court Opinion

ID: 9830677
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:22:40.023494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:25.471115
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellants urge the well-settled principle of law that a public officer will not be enjoined from performing the duties of his office under a valid law, and cites many authorities.
We are of opinion that the record presents no reason for us to pass upon the validity or constitutionality of the statutes involved, nor as to whether shipments of cattle from the republic of Mexico through Texas, if stopped in transit, are subject to inspection or seizure thereunder by the inspector, because, granting that the statutes are valid and applicable to such shipments in proper cases, the plaintiff, by sworn pleading, shows that the cattle in question were not subject to seizure under any of the provisions of the statutes, and the inspector having admitted that he intended to sequestrate the cattle, if not enjoined by a court of competent jurisdiction, and in his answer failed to allege any facts which would authorize the process, in view of the plaintiff’s allegations that none existed. We simply hold that there is no authority for the writ, and therefore no duty to be performed by the hide and animal inspector, and his declaration that he intended to act without showing authority to act clearly means that he was to act outside of the statutory line of his duty, and upon the latter theory alone is the opinion of the court predicated.
The motion is therefore overruled.