168 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 



it has also the power to revoke a license, without 

 notice, and summarily.^ ^ The city of Asheville, 

 N. C, passed an ordinance requiring milk dealers 

 to take out licenses, for which they were to pay 

 one dollar per cow. One Nettles refused to take 

 out the license on the grounds that his herd was 

 outside the limits of the city; that the fee was 

 excessive; and that he sold only to one customer, 

 a creamery. But the necessity for inspection of 

 the dairy is not less because the herd is outside 

 of the city, and tlie expense thereof may be greater. 

 It is not presumed that the cattle will be held in 

 the city. It is not sufficient safeguard to depend 

 only on examinations of the milk itself. Danger- 

 ous infections might thus be overlooked. The 

 only way in which the municipality can protect 

 its citizens is by requiring license issued under 

 certain restrictions, and accompanied by an in- 

 spection of the business from start to finish. 

 Neither is the fact that the milk was sold directly 

 only to one customer a reason for laxity in super- 

 vision, especially when that one customer is a 

 creamery. The ordinance was upheld. ^^ Where 

 the dairy is within the territorial jurisdiction of 

 the municipality certain methods may be used 

 which are inapplicable in extraten'itorial jurisdic- 

 tions. The city is therefore forced to depend upon 

 its commercial jurisdiction in the latter case, and 

 enforce it through licenses in the form of a modi- 

 fied contract. The dairyman agrees to do certain 

 things, in return for which the city gives him a 

 right to sell his product within the city. In the 



11 State V, Milwaukee, 121 N. 12 Asheville v. Nettles, 164 



W. 658, 140 Wis. 38. N. C. 315, 80 S. E. 236. 



