Drolet v. Armstrong

(concurring) — While. I concur in the conclusion reached hy Judge Mitchell, I do1 so for a somewhat different reason than, he has given.

Dogs, as I understand their legal aspect with respect to the right of property their owners have in them, are not animals either ferae naturae or domitae naturae, but occupy a place somewhat intermediate between the two. In other words, while a property right is recognized in dogs, it is a property right of a base and inferior kind, not that absolute and superior right of property an owner has in animals necessary to the subsistence of man, such as horses,…