Hogan v. Brown
Alexander Hogan v. R. A. Brown.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
MONTGOMERY, J.
The horse described in the complaint was taken (the case does not show in what manner he was taken) from the owner in Moore County, and was afterwards taken up and impounded in Anson County, a stock-law county. The animal was advertised and sold by ' the impounder, and at the sale one E.
J.
Lilly became the purchaser. The balance of the proceeds of the sale, after the impounder’s fees had been paid, was turned over to the proper authorities of Anson County, as required by law. Lilly sold the horse to the defendant, Brown, and after the .demand and before the commencement of this action, the defendant had sold it to some other person. The plaintiff had no knowledge of where the horse was from the time it was taken from him in Moore County, until he had heard that it was in the possession of the defendant, when he made a demand for the possession of his property. The demand was refused. .
. LTpon .the facts which ""the Judge found upon agreement^ there was a judgment that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the value of the horse, and an issue was submitted to the jury *253 for that purpose. The jury assessed the value of the animal to be $6(5 2-3, and judgment was entered against the defendant for that amount.
We think the judgment was erroneous. The proceedings by the impounder under which the horse was sold were proceeds ings in rem.
The animal itself was condemned for the payment of the fees due by law to the impounder, and no notice was necessary to be given to the owner other than that which was given by the advertisement, required by law in such cases, and which was in fact given.
Statute laws giving the right to impound stock and to sell the same for damages committed upon property while astray, and cost for impounding, have been enacted in many of the States, and they have stood the' test of the courts when they have been attacked as unconstitutional on the ground that they deprive one of his property without due process of law. ..........
v. .........., 7 Watts Penn., 482; 10 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, pp. 187, 190; 38, Ibid, p. 1149.
This is a hard case, but the Court is unable to relieve’the plaintiff. ‘ ' Error.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.