322 impouxding; injuries on highways, etc. 



has been held that it is a legitimate exercise of police power 

 and need not be preceded by a judicial inquiry.'^* Such pro- 

 ceedings are in rem and constructive service by publication is 

 sufficient to give validity to the sale, without personal notice 

 being served on the owner J^ 



But in a Kentucky case it was held that to authorize the 

 sale of an animal impounded for running at large to pay the 

 fees and costs of impounding, some formal proceeding is 

 necessary to determine the fact that the animal seized was ac- 

 tually running at large, in which the owner may have an op- 

 portunity of being heard; that, if possible, personal service 

 should be had upon him, but, if not, the proceeding may be 

 in rem and some public notice given him of the time and place 

 of sale ; and that it is not necessary that the owner should have 

 permitted the animal to run at large, as the city has the right 

 to subject it to fees and costs without reference to the owner's 

 being in fault.*" An ordinance providing for the impound- 

 ing of dogs running at large, notification to their owners, and 

 the killing of dogs not redeemed within twenty-four hours, 

 is not unconstitutional.*^ 



One impounding cattle, before he can sell them at auction, 

 must protect himself by a legal warrant of sale, and must show 

 that his prior proceedings and those of the pound-keeper have 

 been regular and in conformity with the law.*^ The statute 

 must be strictly observed or the field-driver will be held to be 

 a trespasser ab initio}^ But the field-driver is not such a 

 trespasser where he has lawfully impounded and given notice, 

 though he fails to return or sell according to law through the 

 pound-keeper's default or the insufficiency of the pound.** 



In an action against a city to recover the value of an ani- 



" Wilcox V. Hemming, 58 Wis. 144. " Wilson v. Beyers, 5 Wash. 303. 

 "" Gentry v. Little, 16 Ky. L. Rep. 26. And see Armstrong v. Brown 

 (Ky.), SO S. W. Rep. 17. 

 " Hagerstown v. Witmer, 86 Md. 293. '- Gate v. Gate, 44 N. H. 211. 

 " Smith V. Gates, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 55. 

 '' Goffin V. Vincent, 12 Gush. (Mass.) 98. 



