Barnum v. Vandusen
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of trespass, and trespass on the case; there being two counts of the former description, and one of the latter. It will be sufficient for the present purpose, to state the second count in trespass.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass, and trespass on the case; there being two counts of the former description, and one of the latter. It will be sufficient for the present purpose, to state the second count in trespass. The plaintiff alleged, that on the 1st day of August, 1839, he was, and ever since has been, lawfully seised and possessed of a certain tract of land, situate in Salisbury, in the village of Lime Rock, so called, bounded, &c.; and that, on said 1st day of August, 1839, the defendant, with force and arms, broke and entered into and upon said tract of land, and trod down and…
1Opinion of the CourtHinman, J.
The fact that the sheep, which caused the injury to the plaintiff, did not belong to the defendant, but were only in his care and custody, depasturing his field, may be laid out of the case, as upon the principle established in Smith v. Jaques, 6 Conn. R. 530. the defendant, for the purposes of this case, must be deemed to be their owner, and liable for damage done by them.
1. The principle that the owner of a domestic animal, not naturally inclined to commit mischief, is not liable for an injury committed by it, unless he has notice that such animal is accustomed to commit mischief, though…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Lyons v. MerrickMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Loeb v. MathisIndiana Supreme Court · 1871
- Baldwin v. EnsignSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1881
- Eldridge v. GormanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1905
- Hanson v. CarrollSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1947
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.