« ZurückWeiter »
i a szen to the traveling publie
, and any some the cars Las the right to go into such
pasir there until the departure of the *** 13, 18, 13 Am. Dec. 337. And it is the
** Mis the building in a comfortable, safe, and as die Pr, y, Wilson, 70 Ark. 136, 91 Am.
Jonan T, Senta l'ork ete, B. R. Co., 165 42,3 M. E. 111; Fullerton v. Fordyce,
Da 36, 8 & W.557. ...pay a lichie to Passengers for ill-treatment and
poder willful and malicious or in the at er ist: Harêr F. Central R. R. Co., 62 X. 28, 41 441 916; Sasannab ete. By, Co. 1051n. St. Bep. 85, 29 S. E. 607; White v. , 161, C.631
, 44 Am. St. Rep. 489, 20 8. E, *** tant a passenger for abusive words, chat
, under any circumstances. The fault *** et prending a necessity to strike in self-de
tip a candretor in striking, nor relieve the
and big catu: Birmingham Ry, etc. Co. v. Baird, a la Baq, 43
, 39 Sontá. 456; Baltimore etc. R. R. VAA, 5 Am. St. Rep. 319, 30 Atl. 560. But see
15. Hopkins, ius Ga, 324, 75 Am. St. Rep. the kinni R. R. Co. v, Wetmore, 19 Ohio St.
it in good conscience be held responsible therefor? The reply te this inquiry is to be found in the report of the case in Peavy v. Georgia Ry. Co., 81 Ga. 485, 12 Am. St. Rep. 334, 8 S. E. 70, wherein it was pertinently remarked that: “It is unjust to a master wrongfully to unfit his servant for exercising the care and prudence which are essential in guarding the master's interest and performing the servant's duty.” The doctrine laid down in that case was subsequently recognized and applied in City Electric Ry. Co. v. Shropshire, 101 Ga. 33, 28 S. E. 508, and in the cases cited on page 35, 101 Ga., and page 508, 28 S. E. In Georgia Ry. Co. v. Hopkins, 108 Ga. 324, 75 Am. St. Rep. 39, 33 S. E. 965, the plaintiff sought to recover damages because of an assault which the company's night watchman committed upon him while he was at the station waiting for a train; but it appearing that the plaintiff had himself been guilty of grossly improper conduct, and had exasperated the company's agent by the use of offensive and insulting language to and of him, this court held the company was not liable for the consequences of such assault, even though the agent may not have been fully excusable, and the battery inflicted was entirely disproportioned to the insult given. In the present case no physical injury was inflicted upon the plaintiff. His feelings were hurt; that is all. His sole griev. ance is that the company's official used unnecessary force in undertaking to discharge his duties. By persistent disregard of the company's regulations, it is clear that the plaintiff forfeited his right to longer remain in its waiting-room, and might very properly have been ejected therefrom. Being himself in the wrong, he is not in a position to justly complain that, instead of being forcibly ejected from the room, he was wrongfully treated with unnecessary harshness by the official in charge, and then permitted to remain therein, since the plaintiff by his own misconduct so exasperated that official as to unfit him for performing in an irreproachable and conservative manner the duties assigned to him 934 by his master. This being the view we take of the case, we shall not specifically deal with other points made in the motion for a new trial, touching the propriety of charging the jury as to the law with regard to the recovery of punitive damages, etc. In our opinion, the plaintiff was entitled to no damages at all.
Judgment reversed. By five justices.
The Reasonableness of Rules Prescribed by Railroad companies is a question of law for the court: South Florida R. R. Co. v. Rhodes, 25 Fla. 40, 23 Am. St. Rep. 506, 5 South. 633; Barker v. Central Park etc. R. R. Co., 151 N. Y. 237, 56 Am. St. Rep. 626, 45 N. E. 550,
A Railroad Stution-house is open to the traveling public, and any person desiring to go upon the cars has the right to go into such house at the proper time and remain there until the departure of the train: Harris v. Stevens, 31 Vt. 79, 73 Am. Dec. 337. And it is the duty of the company to keep the building in a comfortable, safe, and proper condition: St. Louis etc, Ry, v. Wilson, 70 Ark. 136, 91 Am. St, Rep. 74, 66 S. W. 661; Jordan v. New York etc. R. R. Co., 165 Mass. 546, 52 Am. St. Rep. 522, 43 N. E. 111; Fullerton v. Fordyce, 121 Mo. 1, 42 Am. St. Rep. 516, 25 S. W. 587.
A Railroad Company is Liable to Passengers for ill-treatment and assaults from its employés, whether willful and malicious or in the scope of their employment or not: Haver v. Central R. R. Co., 62 N. J. L. 282, 72 Am. St. Rep. 648, 41 Atl. 916; Savannah etc. Ry. Co. 5. Quo, 103 Ga. 125, 68 Am. St. Rep. 85, 29 S. E. 607; White v. Norfolk etc. R. R. Co., 115 N. C. 631, 44 Am. St. Rep. 489, 20 8. E. 191. A conductor must not assault a passenger for abusive words, or in revenge or punishment, under any circumstances. The fault of a passenger, short of producing a necessity to strike in self-defense, will neither justify a conductor in striking, nor relieve the carrier from liability for his acts: Birmingham Ry, etc. Co. v. Baird, 150 Ala, 334, 89 Am. St. Rep. 43, 30 South. 456; Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. 7. Barger, 80 Md. 23, 45 Am. St. Rep. 319, 30 Atl, 560. But see Georgia R. R. etc. Co. v. Hopkins, 108 Ga. 324, 75 Am. St. Rep. 39, 33 S. E. 965; Little Miami R. R. Co. v. Wetmore, 19 Ohio St. 110, 2 Am. Rep. 373.
en touragers of the state of Idaho, said statements and bs atidarits of reputable persons, all to
Carte, state of Utah, the county of Box Elder, state e pel the county of Elko, in the state of Nevada; and
the momen that sheep from said districts are annually ise, or imported into the state of Idaho, and, if 80 m. Phaseboy spread infection and disease on the
Mat Sheep of this state, which act would result in
a: Mon, therefore, I, Frank Steuenberg, governor
Vahn, bis virtue of authority in me tested, and
ist, in the county of Cache, in the state of
by Box Eler, in the state of Utah, and the
Sanatation who, after publication of such proe-
and transports, conveys or drives the same
a la part erleeding one thousand dollars, nor less med Bars, and is liable for all damages that may
yran by reason of the importation or trans
, or within
STATE V. RASMUSSEN.
[7 Idaho, 1, 59 Pac. 933.) QUARANTINE of Animals.—A state has the power by law to prevent the introduction within its boundaries of diseased animals, and it is not an essential to the enforcement of such law that the fact of the existence of disease be primarily established. (p. 238.)
QUARANTINE of Animals—Constitutional Law.-A statuto made simply and solely for the protection of the animals of the state from infection by the introduction into the state of diseased animals from a known infected district outside the state is a valid exercise of the police power, and does not in any way interfere with commerce between the states, or abridge the rights of citizens of other states within the state where the statute is enacted. (p. 239.)
Home of this section."
part of April, 1899, the governor of Idaho, in
State of Taaho. Executive Office.
and the disease known as 'scab
' or 'scabbies' is epi. on these in certain localities or districts, viz., in the
Brown & Henderson, S. C. Winters and J. J. Guheen, for the appellant.
S. H. Hays, attorney general, for the state.
3 HUSTON, C. J. The appellant was convicted of a violation of the provisions of an act of the legislature of Idaho, and the proclamation of the governor issued under and in obedience to the command of said statutes, from which judgment this appeal is taken. The said act is as follows:
“Section 1. Whenever the governor of the state of Idaho has reason to believe that scab or any other infectious disease of * sheep has become epidemic in certain localities in any other state or territory, or that conditions exist that render sheep likely to convey disease, he must thereupon, by proclamation, designate such localities and prohibit the importation from them of any sheep into the state, except under such restrictions as, after consultation with the state sheep inspector, he may deem proper.
Any person or corporation who, after publication of such proclamation, receives in charge any such sheep from any of the prohibited districts, and transports, conveys or drives the same to and within the limits of any of the counties of this state, is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, nor less than two hundred dollars, and is liable for all damages that may be sustained by any person by reason of the importation or transportation of such prohibited sheep.
"Sec. 2. Upon issuing such proclamation, the owners or persons in charge of any sheep being shipped into Idaho, against which quarantine has been declared, must forthwith notify the deputy inspector of the county into which such sheep first come, of such arrival, and such owner or persons in charge must not allow any sheep so quarantined to pass over or upon any public highway, or upon the ranges occupied by other sheep, or within five miles of any corral in which sheep are usually corraled until such sheep have first been inspected, and any person failing to comply with the provisions of this section is punishable as provided in section 1 of this act, and is liable for all damages sustained by any person by reason of the failure to comply with the provisions of this section."
On the twelfth day of April, 1899, the governor of Idaho, in compliance with the provisions of said act, issued the following proclamation:
"State of Idaho, Executive Office, "Whereas, I have received statements from reliable woolgrowers and stock-raisers of the state of Idaho, said statements being supplemented by affidavits of reputable persons, all to the effect that the disease known as “scab' or 'scabbies' is epi. demic among sheep in certain localities or districts, viz., in the county of Cache, state of Utah, the county of Box Elder, state of Utah, and the county of Elko, in the state of Nevada; and
whereas, it is known that sheep from said districts are annually moved, driven, or imported into the state of Idaho, and, if so njored, would thereby spread infection and disease on the ranges and among the sheep of this state, which act would result in great disaster: Now, therefore, I, Frank Steuenberg, governor of the state of Idaho, by virtue of authority in me vested, and after due consultation with the state sheep inspector, do hereby prohibit the importation, driving, or moving into the state of Idaho of all sheep now being held, herded, or ranged within said infected district, viz., the county of Cache, in the state of Utah, the county of Box Elder, in the state of Utah, and the
and a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine of not
dollars not more than two hundred and Pe 15k, probibited the introduction into this state, par pe has any means, of any sheep, until same had been
lam, transportation through the state shpestor of Idaho, which inspection must
go Nisouri held by the supreme court of the
of Kansas, the validity of which was sustained
1899. Ct. Rep. 488. The statute under consideran
way miles beyond the state line of Idaho; and all
... vid. And any person or persons
ista of this section shall be deemed 323, 2n) utan conviction, ther shall be
de las than one hundred ($100) dollars,
1st less than two months por more than
* terten to see and bold such sheep by such
, for a period of ten days, and it said
y of the same as may be necessary to satisfy
county of Elko, in the state of Nevada, or which may hereafter be held, herded or ranged within said infected districts, for a period of sixty days from and after the date of this proclamation. After the termination of said sixty days sheep can be moved into this state only upon compliance with all laws of the state of Idaho regarding the inspection and dipping of sheep. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused to be affixed the great seal of the state. Done at Boise, the capital, this 12th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine.
"FRANK STEUENBERG. [Seal] "By the governor:
“Secretary of State." While there are some sixteen assignments of error in this case, it is conceded by counsel for appellant that the important question involved is the constitutionality of the act of the legislature of Idaho under which the conviction was had. It is claimed that this case comes within the reasoning of this court in the case of State v. Duckworth, 5 Idaho, 642, 95 Am. St. Rep. 199, 51 Pac. 456. In that case the defendant was convicted of a violation of an act of the legislature of Idaho passed in 1895, and amended in 1897, section 6 of which act provides as follows:
“Sec. 6. Any person, persons, company, corporation or association intending to bring, or cause to be brought from any other state or territory into any of the counties of the state of Idaho, any sheep, he or they must first notify the deputy sheep
inspector of the district or county nearest to the point of entrance into this state that at a fixed date he will be within twenty miles from the state line at a designated point, with said sheep for inspection; and it shall be the duty of the deputy sheep inspector to examine such sheep within three days, and if pronounced sound, to immediately dip such sheep once, and then upon being tendered his compensation as hereinafter provided, issue a permit allowing such sheep to enter this state subject to such regulations as are enforced on resident sheep. But if such sheep are found scabby or infected with any contagious or infectious disease, then the deputy sheep inspector must dip said sheep twice with an interval of from eight to fifteen days between dipping and then issue a permit for said sheep to enter said state under the same regulations as hereto fore provided; provided, however, that all sheep must enter said state within three days from the final dipping, otherwise permit
1 dl the law of 1895 provides as follows:
serciation, owning, controlling or manag-
se u tepty sheep inspector appinted under this the team are free from scab, scabbies or other in
Any violation of this section
tan di the act of 1899 with the act ander ques.
, disclose a greater difference than existed
se sot Slate r. Druckworth, 5 Idaho, 642, 95 Am. St.