168 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 
it has also the power to revoke a license, without 
notice, and summarily.t!. 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 hmits 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 the 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 
ereamery. The ordinance was upheld.'"? Where 
the dairy is within the territorial jurisdiction of 
the municipality certain methods may be used 
which are inapplicable in extraterritorial 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 8. E. 236. 
