Trompen v. Verhage
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Ottawa. (Arnold, J.) Case. Defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtCooley, C. J.
The principal question in this case, and the only one we deem it necessary to consider, is whether, under § 2119 of Howell’s Statutes, the plaintiff who sues for the destruction of sheep by dogs, is entitled to recover double damages without proof that the owner of the dogs was aware of the vicious nature of the dogs. We think the statute in very plain terms authorizes it. After expressly giving double damages, it then in immediate connection provides that “it shall not be necessary, in order to sustain an action, to prove that the owner or keeper knew that such dog was accustomed to do such…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Fye v. ChapinMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
- Holmes v. MurraySupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- Fletcher v. MorrellMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Allen v. BainbridgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1906