Duggan v. Hansen
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court of Perkins county. Tried below before Church, J. The animal was not running at large. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary; Thompson v. Corpstein, 25 Cal., 653.) Hansen is chargeable with Fatchett’s negligence and cannot recover.
Read the full summary
Error from the district court of Perkins county. Tried below before Church, J. The animal was not running at large. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary; Thompson v. Corpstein, 25 Cal., 653.) Hansen is chargeable with Fatchett’s negligence and cannot recover. (3 Wait, Actions & Defenses, p. 617; McCarthy v. Wolfe, 40 Mo., 520; Sargent v. Slack, 47 Yt., 674; Halty v. Market, 44 111., 225; Knowles v. Mulder, 41 N. W. Rep. [Mich.], 896; Brooks v. Taylor, 65 Mich., 208; Meier v. Shrunk, 44 N. W. Rep. [Ia.] 209.)
1Opinion of the Court
Ragan, C.
James Duggan by this, a proceeding in error, seeks to reverse the judgment of the district court of Perkins county rendered against him at the suit of John Hansen. The only assignment relied upon for the reversal of the judgment is that it is contrary to the law and the evidence of the case. Hansen owned a mare which one Fatchett was pasturing for hire. At this time Duggan owned a bull. This bull broke away from the premises or herd of Duggan and broke into the pasture of Fatchett, in which was Hansen’s mare, and while in the pasture gored the mare, of which she died; and Hansen…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Fraser v. HawkinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
- Lemery v. LeonardOregon Supreme Court · 1921
- Holden v. VarnerMontana Supreme Court · 1954