Wells v. Howell
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, on certiorari, to a Justice’s Court. Howell sued Wells before the Justice, and declared against him, for that his ( Wells'1) horse had entered the plaintiff’s field, and destroyed the grass, &c. there, to his damage of ten dollars. Wells pleaded, that there was no fence around the field, when the damage was done, and admitted the trespass and the amount of damage: Hozoell demurred to the plea.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, on certiorari, to a Justice’s Court. Howell sued Wells before the Justice, and declared against him, for that his ( Wells'1) horse had entered the plaintiff’s field, and destroyed the grass, &c. there, to his damage of ten dollars. Wells pleaded, that there was no fence around the field, when the damage was done, and admitted the trespass and the amount of damage: Hozoell demurred to the plea. It was admitted that there was no fence, as stated, and that there was no town by-law about fences, or cattle running at large. The Justice gave judgment for the plaintiff below, for ten…
1Per curiam
Every unwarrantable entry on another’s land, is a trespass, whether the land he enclosed or not. (3 Bl. Com. 209. 3 Selwyn’s N. P. 1101.) A person is equally answerable for the trespass of his cattle, as of himself. (3 Bl. Com. 211.) The defendant below was bound to show a right to permit his cattle to go at large ; and it is conceded, that there was no town regulation on the subject. The judgment must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by16 opinions
- Tonawanda Rail-Road v. MungerNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Bush v. BrainardNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Hurd v. Rutland & Burlington RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1853
- Bileu v. PaisleyOregon Supreme Court · 1889
- Worrall v. RhoadsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.