GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 153 



had dropped in pens of the stockyards company, 

 the plaintiff is bound to show that the cattle 

 alleged to have dropped the ticks were in the pens, 

 and that they contaminated the same, and that 

 the company did not disinfect the pens. It will 

 be presumed that the stockyards company did its 

 duty in the absence of evidence to the contrary. A 

 purchaser who bought cattle subsequent to infec- 

 tion, has no right of action for the negligence to 

 which the disease is due, in the absence of evi- 

 dence that the company knew, at the time of sale, 

 that the cattle were infected.^^ 



A plaintiff rented a barn to defendant company, 

 in which to house horses injured or temporarily 

 incapacitated while performing certain work. The 

 fact that defendant innocently housed a glandered 

 horse in the bam, resulting in its destruction by 

 the public authorities, did not constitute a tres- 

 pass, and the defendant was not liable for the 

 value of the barn.^^ (§ 211.) 



113. Law Versus Policy. Although, as we have 

 stated, property which is taken and destroyed for 

 the public good under police power differs from 

 that taken under the power of eminent domain in 

 that its confiscation imposes no legal obligation 

 for payment, this is an extreme use of the power. 

 *' Where it is proposed to exercise such an author- 

 ity the constitutional right of private property 

 must be weighed against the demands of the pub- 

 lic welfare, and it is obvious that a public interest 



esEshleman v. Union Stock- & Co., 72 Wash. 482, 130 Pac, 



yards Co. 222 Pa. 20, 70 Atl. 753, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1092. 



899. Affirmed on rehearing, 72 Wash. 



6< Farrar v, Andrew Peterson 482, 133 Pac. 594. 



