Legal Opinion

State v. . Smith

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 11, 1911PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The defendants were indicted in the court below for the crime of willfully killing a dog, the property of the prosecutor. It would be vain and unprofitable to discuss, for the purpose of deciding, that a dog is a living creature within the meaning of Revisal, sec. 3299, under which the indictment was drawn and presented by the grand jury. We have held that he is a subject of property, a domesticated animal, and not merely ferae naturae, and that a civil action may be maintained for damages caused by an injury to him, though he may have been guilty of some "youthful indiscretion" or harmless…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Spring Co. v. EdgarSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  2. Van Leuven v. Lyke & DumondNew York Court of Appeals · 1848
  3. Decker v. GammonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1857
  4. Cockerham v. . NixonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1850
  5. Mowery v. Town of SalisburySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1880

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Altman v. City of High PointCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2003
  2. Sink Ex Rel. Pullen v. MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  3. Plumidies v. . SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  4. State v. . DickensSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
  5. State v. DickensSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API