OTHER REMEDIES AGAINST TRESPASSING ANIMALS. 309 



penalty without a judicial investigation or an opportunity to 

 show that the owner of the animals had not incurred the pen- 

 alty, it is unconstitutional.^^*' 



Where, however, an opportunity of judicial investigation is 

 given, the statute is constitutional, and it is immaterial that 

 personal notice to the owner is not required : notice by post- 

 ing is sufficient. "The proceedings are in the nature of pro- 

 ceedings in rem, the penalty or forfeiture attaching to and 

 being a Hen upon the offending animals." ^^^ It is essential 

 that the requirements of statutes regulating summary pro- 

 ceedings should be strictly complied with, or else such pro- 

 ceedings are void.^^^ 



""See 97 Am. Dec. go n., citing Wilcox v. Hemming, 58 Wis. 144; 

 Gosselink v. Campbell 4 la. 296; Poppen v. Holmes, 44 111. 360; Gilchrist 

 v. Schmidling, 12 Kan. 263; Campau v. Langley, 39 Mich. 451. Contra: 

 Kennedy v. Sowden, i McMulI. L. (S. C.) 323; Crosby v. Warren, i 

 Rich. L. (S. C.) 38s, where it was held that such a sale even for a fine or a 

 penalty does not deprive the owner of property without due process of law. 

 And see Strauser v. Kosier, 58 Pa. St. 496, sustaining an act by which 

 swine running at large may be forfeited and sold for a penalty, without 

 notice. See also Spitler v. Young, 63 Mo. 42; Roberts v. Ogle, 30 111. 

 459, and § 84, infra. 



-" Campbell v. Evans, 45 N. Y. 356. And see Fox v. Dunckel, 55 Barb. 

 (N. Y.) 431; Hellen v. Noe, 3 Ired. L. (N. C.) 493. 



""^ Cory V. Dennis, 93 Ala. 440; Strauser v. Kosier, 58 Pa. St. 496. 



