Hine v. Munson
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Replevin of beasts impounded; avowry that they were taken damage feasant on defendant’s land ; tried to the jury in the superior court before Dutton, J. The court charged the jury? contrary to the claim.of the plaintiff, that if they should find that the cattle broke and entered through the plaintiff’s insufficient fence, their verdict must be for the defendant, although they should also find that the defendant’s portion of the fence was not a sufficient and lawful fence and…
Read the full summary
Replevin of beasts impounded; avowry that they were taken damage feasant on defendant’s land ; tried to the jury in the superior court before Dutton, J. The court charged the jury? contrary to the claim.of the plaintiff, that if they should find that the cattle broke and entered through the plaintiff’s insufficient fence, their verdict must be for the defendant, although they should also find that the defendant’s portion of the fence was not a sufficient and lawful fence and should not find that the cattle were unruly. The jury having returned a verdict for the defendant the plaintiff moved…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCurdy, J.
So far as there is any obscurity in the law-relative to this case it arises from the fact that the provisions of statutes bearing upon it are not brought together, but are found in separate acts under different heads and in disconnected sections of the same act.
By the common law the owners of cattle are bound to take care of them, and if they enter on the land of another, such owners are liable to make good the damage, whether the land was fenced or not. But in this state a different rule has been adopted. 1 Swift Dig., 525; Studwell v. Ritch, 14 Conn., 292; Wright v. Wright, 21 id., 344.
By…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Studwell v. RitchSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1841