Chapman v. Decrow
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Exceptions by Dependant. This was an action of trespass to recover the value of a dog killed by the defendant and belonging to the plaintiff. The jury found for the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
On Exceptions by Dependant. This was an action of trespass to recover the value of a dog killed by the defendant and belonging to the plaintiff. The jury found for the plaintiff. The defendant, in justification for killing the dog, claimed that the dog was trespassing on his premises and was then, or had been immediately before the shooting, engaged with two other dogs in chasing and worrying his domesticated animals, viz: — tame rabbits, and that the dog was, at the time, outside of the enclosure or immediate care of his owner. The dog was killed on the 24th day of April, 1897; and, as…
1Opinion of the CourtStrout, J.
Trespass for killing plaintiff’s dog. Defendant claimed that the dog was trespassing on his premises, and was, “then, or had been immediately before the shooting, engaged with two other dogs in chasing and worrying his domesticated animals, to wit, tame rabbits;” and that the killing was therefore justified.
The dog had not been licensed for that year, as provided by c. 287 of the laws of 1893, though it had been the previous year. The defendant claimed that because he was not licensed, that there was no property in him, and that anybody had the right to kill him, and therefore the owner had…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Livermore v. BatchelderMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
3Cited by10 opinions
- Scharfeld v. RichardsonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1942
- Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. WedgworthSupreme Court of Alabama · 1922
- Hofer v. CarsonOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- Hill v. MichamOhio Supreme Court · 1927
- State v. LeonardSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1984
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.