Covington County v. Pickering
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from circuit court of Covington county. Hon. W. H. Hughes, Judge.' Action by B. T. Pickering against Covington county. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Is washing the same as dipping to eradicate the cattle tick? The statute says dipping and the Act of 1916, with reference to what rules and regulations the state livestock sanitary hoard may pass, says that such rules and regulations must he with reference to dipping.
Read the full summary
Appeal from circuit court of Covington county. Hon. W. H. Hughes, Judge.' Action by B. T. Pickering against Covington county. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Is washing the same as dipping to eradicate the cattle tick? The statute says dipping and the Act of 1916, with reference to what rules and regulations the state livestock sanitary hoard may pass, says that such rules and regulations must he with reference to dipping. In the case of Abbott v. State, 63 So. 667, this court held: “That courts must look to the statute itself. for the legislative intent, and cannot make law by…
1Opinion of the CourtEthridge, J.
J, B. T. Pickering filed suit against the county for the value of a mare which died from being sponged or bathed in a solution alleged to be in li.eu of the dipping process required under the rules and regulations of the live stock sanitary board and the laws of this state.
*25It appears that the county was operating under the tick eradication law, and had built a dipping vát known a.s the "speed vat” near the residence of the plaintiff which-was under the charge of one Duckworth as dipping inspector. Tt is alleged that the plaintiff was required to dip his mare under said law and regulations,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Childs v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1918
3Cited by2 opinions
- Winter v. MackSupreme Court of Florida · 1940
- Franklin County v. MiddletonMississippi Supreme Court · 1925