State v. . Smith
Supreme Court of North Carolina
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
- Spring Co. v. EdgarSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Van Leuven v. Lyke & DumondNew York Court of Appeals · 1848
- Decker v. GammonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1857
- Cockerham v. . NixonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1850
- Mowery v. Town of SalisburySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1880
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Altman v. City of High PointCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2003
- Sink Ex Rel. Pullen v. MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- Plumidies v. . SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
- State v. . DickensSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- State v. DickensSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.