Cobb v. Cater
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Watts, J., Anderson, February, 1900. Action for damages for poisoning a setter dog by C. E. Cobb and W. H. Humphreys against A. P. Cater. Prom judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. The former cite: Malice may be shown from acts: 15 S. C., 413; 2 Rioh., 179. Dogs are property: 54 S. C., 481; 55 S. C., 322. As to right of one to put out poison: 35 Am.
Read the full summary
Before Watts, J., Anderson, February, 1900. Action for damages for poisoning a setter dog by C. E. Cobb and W. H. Humphreys against A. P. Cater. Prom judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. The former cite: Malice may be shown from acts: 15 S. C., 413; 2 Rioh., 179. Dogs are property: 54 S. C., 481; 55 S. C., 322. As to right of one to put out poison: 35 Am. Dec., 96; 141 Mass., 179. Mr. Brnest B. Cochran, cites: Killing dogs not subject to same rule as other animals: 10 Rich. D., 52; 33 S. E. R., 466; 100 Mass., 136; 6 Pa. St., 318; 24 111. App., 270; S3 N. H., 399; 14 Tex. Ct. App., 200;…
1Opinion of the Court
March 12, 1901. The opinion of the Court was delivered by This was an action for damages for killing a pointer dog of the value of $100, belonging to plaintiffs, by poison alleged to have been administered to him by defendant, on or about the 18th December, 1899. There were two causes of action — the first was for actual and the second for punitive damages. In the first cause of action, it is alleged that the defendant, "without any just or lawful excuse administered poison to said dog." In the second cause of action, it is alleged that the defendant administered poison to said dog,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. KendallSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1899