Smith v. Barre R. R.
Supreme Court of Vermont
Action on tbe case for injuring the plaintiff’s horse. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury at the September term, 1890, Washington county, Munson, J., presiding. Yerdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepts. The plaintiff hired the horse pastured by Bedell & Abbott, who owned the farm where it was injured. The horse was kept in a pasture, between which and the defendant’s track there was a sufficient fence.
Read the full summary
Action on tbe case for injuring the plaintiff’s horse. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury at the September term, 1890, Washington county, Munson, J., presiding. Yerdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepts. The plaintiff hired the horse pastured by Bedell & Abbott, who owned the farm where it was injured. The horse was kept in a pasture, between which and the defendant’s track there was a sufficient fence. It escaped from the pasture, into an adjoining meadow belonging .to the same farm through the fence separating the two lots, and from there passed on to defendant’s…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
ROSS, Ch. J.
The defendant contends that the plaintiff’s horse, on the occasion when it was injured, was wrongfully upon the meadow. The plaintiff had arranged with the owners of the meadow to pasture the horse in a pasture belonging to them, which adjoined the meadow, upon the understanding that it should be kept in the pasture. If the land owners allowed the horse to escape *23upon the meadow, the horse would be wrongfully there neither as against the rights of the defendant, nor of the land owners. The statute requiring a railroad to fence its road is…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Delphia v. Rutland RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1903
- Brown v. Central Vermont Railway, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1960