Reuter v. Swarthout
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCrownhart, J.
In 1903 the legislature added to the statute as it theretofore existed the words “although he escapes without the fault of such owner or keeper; and the construction of any fence enumerated in section 1390 shall not relieve such owner or keeper from liability for any damage committed by an animal of the enumerated class upon the inclosed premises of an adjoining owner.” Prior to the amendment the court had expressed its doubts as to the statute fixing an absolute liability on the owner of the animals proscribed. Montgomery v. Breed, 34 Wis. 649. After the amendment, however, this court held…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Adams v. Cumberland Inn Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1906
- Montgomery v. BreedWisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
- Harrison v. McClellanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
- Hadtke v. GrzyllWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
3Cited by7 opinions
- White v. LeederWisconsin Supreme Court · 1989
- Heyen v. WillisAppellate Court of Illinois · 1968
- Fringer v. VenemaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
- Frost v. Robave, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1998
- Sharp v. LevineDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1988
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.