Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

204 U.S. 320

Bown v. Walling

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued January 10, 1907.

Decided February 4, 1907.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1907-02-04

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHOl</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion.</p> <p>There was no appearance or brief filed for defendant in error.,</p>

1 counsel of record

Relies on Bacon v. Walker · Walling v. Bown

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · 7–2 · Decided 1907-02-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently October 1978

11 state decisions

6019071910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Messrs. S. M. Atockslager, W. E. Borah, Frank T. Wyman, and John C. Rice for plaintiffs in error.

No counsel for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

¶1

This action was brought in the probate court in and for Elmore county, state of Idaho, for the sum of $200 damages sustained by defendant in error by the violation by plaintiffs in error of §§ 1210, 1211, of the Revised Statutes of Idaho. The amended complaint alleged that the offense was committed by plaintiffs in error by wrongfully and negligently permitting and allowing their sheep to graze within 2 miles of the dwelling house of defendant in error and upon the government lands around his premises. The defense, set up by demurrer, was, as in Bacon v. Walker, 204 U. S. 311, 51 L. ed. 499, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 289, that those sections were void under the due process and equality clauses of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The trial court rendered judgment for the defendant in error, which was affirmed by the district court for Elmore county and by the supreme court of the state. 9 Idaho, 740, 76 Pac. 318.

¶2

The case was argued with Bacon v. Walker, and, on the authority of that case, the judgment is affirmed.

¶3

Mr. Justice Brewer and Mr. Justice Peckham dissent.

/204/us/320 · .json · Public domain