Selleck v. Selleck
Supreme Court of Connecticut
IN ERROR. This was an action of debt, brought by Harmon Selleck against Charles Selleck, to recover the sum of ten dollars, being the penalty imposed by the statute “ relating to sheep,” §6., on the owner of a ram, who suffers it to go at large between the 1st day of August and the 1st day of December.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. This was an action of debt, brought by Harmon Selleck against Charles Selleck, to recover the sum of ten dollars, being the penalty imposed by the statute “ relating to sheep,” §6., on the owner of a ram, who suffers it to go at large between the 1st day of August and the 1st day of December. The declaration alleged, that the defendant, at Salisbury, on the 17th day of August, 1846, was the owner of a certain ram. which he, then and there, suffered to go at large and out of his enclosure, contrary to the statute; which ram, being so at large, was found and taken up, by the…
1Opinion of the Court
Church, Ch. J.
This case involves a principle of some practical importance to agriculturists, and this alone gives it an interest worthy of our consideration.
Our only difficulty in deciding it, has been to understand certainly, what the county court has-instructed the jury to be the law of the case. From a careful examination of the charge, we suppose the doctrine of it to be, and that the jury must so have understood, that by the 6th section of the revised “Act relating to sheep,” the owner of a ram is bound to exercise the same, or about the same, care in restraining *505it from going at large,…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Purinton v. JamrockMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- State v. PoplowskiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
- Guastamachio v. BrennanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1941
- O'Leary v. Brooks Elevator Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1898
- State v. SaloneConnecticut Superior Court · 1961
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.