Hinckley v. Emerson
New York Supreme Court
On certiorari to a Justice’s Court. In the Court below / Emerson declared against Hinckley, in trespass, for killing his (Emerson’s) dog; to which Hinckley pleaded the ■Veneral issue; and justified the killing as necessary to preserve his property. . : The plaintiff proved that the defendant shotdhe dog near the defendant’s gate.
Read the full summary
On certiorari to a Justice’s Court. In the Court below / Emerson declared against Hinckley, in trespass, for killing his (Emerson’s) dog; to which Hinckley pleaded the ■Veneral issue; and justified the killing as necessary to preserve his property. . : The plaintiff proved that the defendant shotdhe dog near the defendant’s gate. The witness swore that he set the dog. on .the defendant’s hogs .; hut he.did not hurt theni, Afterwards the dog attacked the hogs, of his own accord* The witness called him off, and took him by the. ear to, lead.him to the plaintiff’s shed ; when the.defendant…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia, per
Woodworth, J.
If the plaintiff’s dog had worried or injured the defendant’s cattle on his land, an action would lie, if the plaintiff had previous notice that his dog was in the'habit of being thus vicious. But except in the case of worrying or killing sheep, a case provided for by statute, (1 R. L. 169,) I do not know that any one beside the master has a right, to, kill, the dqg. „ It seems to be law, that where a dog chases and kills one’s domestic animals on his he may kill the dqg,. (Wadhurst v. Damnie, Cro. Jac. M. Barrington v. Turner, 3 Lev. 28.) But if the dqg merely chases…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Sentell v. New Orleans & Carrollton R. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Meibus v. DodgeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
- Brent v. KimballIllinois Supreme Court · 1871
- Aldrich v. WrightSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1873
- Sentell v. New Orleans & Carrollton RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.