Livermore v. Batchelder
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for killing the plaintiff’s dog. Trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Brigham, C. J., who found the following facts: The plaintiff, on February 20, 1884, was the owner of a dog, which was duly licensed' by the town of Reading, and wore a collar, duly marked as required by the Pub.
Read the full summary
Tort for killing the plaintiff’s dog. Trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Brigham, C. J., who found the following facts: The plaintiff, on February 20, 1884, was the owner of a dog, which was duly licensed' by the town of Reading, and wore a collar, duly marked as required by the Pub. Sts. e. 102, § 80. On said February 20, the plaintiff’s dog, with another dog, came upon the defendant’s premises and there killed and maimed hens of the defendant, which were in his hen-house or shed. The dogs were driven away, and, in about fifteen minutes afterwards, came again upon the…
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
The ruling of the court, as we understand it, meant that the facts found, without more, did not disclose a justification for killing the plaintiff’s dog. It was found that the defendant had reasonable cause to believe that the dog was proceeding to maim and kill his hens, but not that he had reasonable cause to believe that it was necessary to kill the dog in order to prevent him from killing the hens. The justification, therefore, was not made out. Wright v. Ramscot, 1 Saund. 84. Janson v. Brown, 1 Camp. 41. See Commonwealth v. Woodward, 102 Mass. 155, 161.
It is unnecessary to consider…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. WoodwardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
3Cited by11 opinions
- Duenow v. LindemanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
- State v. ChurchillIdaho Supreme Court · 1909
- Chapman v. DecrowSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1899
- Nesbett v. WilburMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- McChesney v. WilsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1903
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.