Opinion of the Court.

contracts'; that is, for the unexpired period of said contracts — about fourteen years. 2d. A further vested right resting in contract and valid legislative enactment to enjoy its franchises until the expiration of its charter, protected from any rivalry on the part of the city of Brooklyn."

The view taken by the majority of the commissioners is thus stated in their report:

"To recapitulate what has just been said, we have valued the franchise upon the assumptions (1) that at present the water company alone has the right publicly to purvey water in the Twenty-sixth ward; (2) that the exclusiveness now incident to its right may at any time be taken from it by the legislature, or by local authorities acting under legislation; but (3) that neither the legislature nor local authorities would, in determining whether to take from the company the exclusiveness of its right, fail to have such due regard as is demanded by ample and fair public policy, to the past investment, risks and services of the company and to the reasonably just expectations which those who have invested money in its work had in mind when so investing."

The Court of Appeals held that neither the statute under which the company was organized, nor the contract, nor the act of annexation, gave to the company rights exclusive and beyond the reach of legislative action. These conclusions of the Court of Appeals are vigorously challenged in the argument, but we are of opinion that they are correct. The statute simply provided for the organization of water companies. The contract in terms contained no words of exclusion. It gave to the company the privilege of laying its mains in the streets of the town, and contained a covenant on the part of the town to pay certain hydrant rentals. But grants from the public are strictly construed in favor of the public, and grants of a privilege are not ordinarily to be taken as grants of an exclusive privilege. Charles River Bridge Co. v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 420; Turnpike Co. v. State, 3 Wall. 210; Stein v. Bienville Water Supply Co., 141 U. S. 67; Hamilton Gaslight & Coke Co. v. Hamilton, 146 U. S. 258; Syracuse Water Co. v. Syracuse, 116 N. Y. 167. Nor is there anything in the act

Opinion of the Court.

of annexation which made a contract or created a right beyond the power of the legislature to change. It gave the city the right to purchase or condemn at any time within two years, but this specification of time did not operate to prevent the legislature from enlarging the time, or from granting at any subsequent period during the life of the contract a further right of purchase or condemnation. No consent was asked of the town company in the act of annexation; it entered into no new contract; nothing was done to enlarge the rights which it had against the public. The act was simply one of legislative discretion in respect to municipal organization, and, like any other such act, subject to future modification by the legislature.

Neither can the act of 1892 be adjudged in conflict with the Federal Constitution because it fails expressly and in detail to prescribe the uses to which the property shall be put by the city of Brooklyn after the condemnation. The property condemned was not vacant land susceptible to a multitude of uses. The character of its use had already been determined by the action of the company. It was already used for public purposes, and the condemnation simply took the title away from the private corporation and vested it in the municipality. And the statute cannot be adjudged unconstitutional because it did not in terms declare that the city of Brooklyn should continue the same use or appropriate the property to some other equally public purpose.

These are the vital questions in the case. We see no error in the judgment, and it is, therefore,

Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM took no part in the decision of this

case.

Statement of the Case.

SENTELL v. NEW ORLEANS AND CARROLLTON RAILROAD COMPANY.

ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS, IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.

A state statute providing that no dog shall be entitled to the protection of the law unless placed upon the assessment rolls, and that in a civil action for killing a dog the owner cannot recover beyond the value fixed by himself in the last assessment preceding the killing, is within the police power of the State.

THIS was an action originally instituted by Sentell in the civil district court for the Parish of Orleans, to recover the value of a Newfoundland bitch, known as "Countess Lona," alleged to have been negligently killed by the railroad company.

The company answered, denying the allegation of negligence, and set up as a separate defence that plaintiff had not complied either with the requirements of the state law, or of the city ordinances, with respect to the keeping of dogs, and was, therefore, not entitled to recover. The law of the State was as follows:

"SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Louisiana, That sec. (1201) twelve hundred and one of the Revised Statutes of Louisiana be amended and reenacted so as to read as follows: From and after the passage of this act dogs owned by citizens of this State are hereby declared to be personal property of such citizens, and shall be placed on the same guarantees of law as other personal property; provided, such dogs are given in by the owner thereof to the assessor.

"SEC. 2. Be it further enacted, etc., That no dog shall be entitled to the protection of the law unless the same shall have been placed upon the assessment rolls.

Counsel for Plaintiff in Error.

"SEC. 3. Be it further enacted, etc., That in civil actions for the killing of or for injuries done to dogs, the owner cannot recover beyond the amount of the value of such dog or dogs, as fixed by himself in the last assessment preceding the killing or injuries complained of.

"SEC. 4. Be it further enacted, etc., That all laws in conflict with this act be repealed.

"Approved July 5, 1882." Laws of 1882, p. 160.

By the city ordinance, adopted July 1, 1890, No. 4613, "no dog shall be permitted to run or be at large upon any street, alley, highway, common or public square within the limits of the city of New Orleans; provided that this section shall not apply to any dog to which a tag, obtained from the treasurer, is attached." By section 8 the treasurer was directed to furnish metal dog tags to all persons applying for the same at the rate of two dollars each, available only for the year in which they were issued.

Plaintiff denied the constitutionality of the state act; and the court charged the jury that the fact that the dog was not tagged, as required by the city ordinances, could not affect the right of the plaintiff to recover; that the above act of the legislature was unconstitutional as destructive of the right of property; and that a dog, being property, a law which requires that property should not be protected unless listed for taxation, was in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, providing that no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of law. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $250, upon which judgment was entered.

The case was carried to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the judgment of the trial court, and entered judgment in favor of the defendant, holding that plaintiff should have shown a compliance with the law of the State and the ordinances of the city as a condition precedent to recover. Whereupon plaintiff sued out a writ of error from this court.

Mr. George Denègre and Mr. Omer Villeré for plaintiff in

error.

Opinion of the Court.

Mr. Henry P. Dart for defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE BROWN, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

This case turns upon the constitutionality of a law of the State of Louisiana requiring dogs to be placed upon the assessment rolls, and limiting any recovery by the owner to the value fixed by himself for the purpose of taxation.

The dog in question was a valuable Newfoundland bitch, registered in the American Kennel's stud-book, and was kept by her owner for breeding purposes. It seems that while following him in a walk upon the streets, she stopped on the track of the railroad company, and, being otherwise engaged for the moment, failed to notice the approach of an electric car which was coming toward her at great speed; and, being moreover heavy with young, and not possessed of her usual agility, she was caught by the car and instantly killed. The Court of Appeals was evidently of opinion that her owner, knowing of her condition, should not have taken her upon a public thoroughfare without exercising the greatest care and vigilance, and that the accident was largely due to a want of prudence upon his part. The facts, however, were not properly before the court, and the opinion was put upon the ground that the state law was constitutional and valid as a police regulation to prevent the indiscriminate owning and breeding of worthless dogs. The judges also annexed a certificate that the decision was reversed upon the ground that the law was constitutional, and that no other point was passed upon.

By the common law, as well as by the law of most, if not all, the States, dogs are so far recognized as property that an action will lie for their conversion or injury, 2 Bl. Com. 393; Cummings v. Perham, 1 Met. 555; Kinsman v. State, 77 Indiana, 132; State v. McDuffie, 34 N. H. 523; Parker v. Mise, 27 Alabama, 480; Wheatley v. Harris, 4 Sneed, 468; Dodson v. Mock, 4 Dev. & Bat. 146; Perry v. Phipps, 10 Ired. Law, 259; Lentz v. Stroh, 6 S. & R. 33; although, in the absence of a statute, they are not regarded as the subjects of