Johnson v. McConnell
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtWorks, J.
This action was brought by the appellant against the respondent to recover the value of three dogs alleged to have been maliciously killed by the latter. The respondent admitted the killing, but justified it on the ground that the dogs were at the time in the act of worrying sheep belonging to his mother and in his charge. As to the fact tending to show such justification, the court found as follows: —
*547“On the first day of February, 1887, the defendant was in the employment of his mother, Mrs. Ellen M. Wilson, and engaged in attending to and earing fqr the sheep upon the ranch, in Sacramento…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Parker v. MiseSupreme Court of Alabama · 1855
- Marshall v. BlackshireSupreme Court of Iowa · 1876
- Kinsman v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Carpenter v. LippittSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
3Cited by10 opinions
- Plotnik v. MeihausCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Phillips v. San Luis Obispo County Department of Animal RegulationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Failing v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1940
- Katsaris v. CookCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Hill v. MichamOhio Supreme Court · 1927
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.