Brown v. Bailey
Supreme Court of Alabama
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Sumter county. Brown, declared in trespass against Bailey for wounding certain cattle. At the trial on the general issue, the evidence was, that the defendant had killed one mule and wounded another. The Court charged the jury, that the allegation of an injury to cattle was not supported by the evidence of an injury to mules. The plaintiff excepted, and now questions the correctness of this decision.
Read the full summary
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Sumter county. Brown, declared in trespass against Bailey for wounding certain cattle. At the trial on the general issue, the evidence was, that the defendant had killed one mule and wounded another. The Court charged the jury, that the allegation of an injury to cattle was not supported by the evidence of an injury to mules. The plaintiff excepted, and now questions the correctness of this decision. Smith, for the plaintiff in error, insisted that mules are included under the general term cattle. Under an English statute against maiming cattle, it has…
1Opinion of the Court
GOLDTHWAITE. J.
Whatever may be the meaninggiven to the term cattle elsewhere, it is certain that with us it never is considered, in common parlance, to include either horses or mules. The legislation of the State frequently uses the term as distinguishable from horses and hogs — and by it neat cattle seem to be usually intended. Thus, persons who háve horses, cattle, or other stock, shall have a brand or mark. [Dig. 79, §1.] Sp it is not lawful for an}' drover to drive horses, mules, cattle, hogs or sheep, from the range to which the *414same may belong. [Id. 80, §5.] Importing cattle afflicted…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Seals v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1939
- Frink's Admr. v. Brotherhood Accident Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1903
- Toledo, Wabash & Western Railway Co. v. ColeIllinois Supreme Court · 1869