Moore v. Mills
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for the alleged unlawful killing of a dog of the plaintiff. Writ dated March 27, 1905. In the Superior Court the case was submitted on an agreed statement of facts and the court was authorized to draw inferences- from the facts stated. The court ordered judgment for the defendant; and the plaintiff appealed.
Read the full summary
Tort for the alleged unlawful killing of a dog of the plaintiff. Writ dated March 27, 1905. In the Superior Court the case was submitted on an agreed statement of facts and the court was authorized to draw inferences- from the facts stated. The court ordered judgment for the defendant; and the plaintiff appealed. The- agreed facts were as follows: On March 22, 1905, the plaintiff was the owner of a dog which on that day was killed by the defendant, who was a deputy commissioner on fisheries and game. The dog was duly licensed in the office of the clerk of the town of Ayer, in which town it…
1Opinion of the CourtLathrop, J.
On the agreed facts in this case we are of opinion that the Superior Court was right in ordering judgment for the defendant. By the R. L. c. 102, § 143, any person may kill a dog which is not “ licensed and collared ” according to the provisions of the chapter. The meaning of the word “ collared ” is shown by § 128 of the same chapter, which provides for the licensing of a dog, three months old or over, and further provides as follows: “ The owner or keeper of a licensed dog shall cause it to wear around its neck a collar distinctly marked with its owner’s name and its registered number.”
The…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Morewood v. WakefieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
3Cited by3 opinions
- Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Commissioner of Public HealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1959
- McDerment v. TaftSupreme Court of Vermont · 1910
- City of Buckhannon Ex Rel. Cockerill v. ReppertWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1936