Weymouth v. Gile
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
' ON agreed statement of facts which are sufficiently stated in the opinion. cited: Cooley, Torts, 340 ; 1 Thompson, Negligence, 196, 209, 213; Hoyes v. Golby, 30 N. H. 143; JBarnum v. Van JDusen, 16 Conn. 200; Sheridan v. Bean, 8 Met. 284. The defendant had no such possession of the cows as would be necessary to mate him liable in this action. There was no contract by which he was to have the care and custody of the animals.
Read the full summary
' ON agreed statement of facts which are sufficiently stated in the opinion. cited: Cooley, Torts, 340 ; 1 Thompson, Negligence, 196, 209, 213; Hoyes v. Golby, 30 N. H. 143; JBarnum v. Van JDusen, 16 Conn. 200; Sheridan v. Bean, 8 Met. 284. The defendant had no such possession of the cows as would be necessary to mate him liable in this action. There was no contract by which he was to have the care and custody of the animals. Their several owners took them home each night and returned them to the pasture in the morning. Tie had neither a general nor special property in them. It is only when…
1Opinion of the CourtAppleton, C. J.
This is an action of trespass quare clausum fregii. The trespass is admitted. Is the defendant liable ?
The defendant depastured five cows on land leased by Mm. While under his charge they escaped 1'rom his premises and committed the trespass, which is the subject matter of this litigation. As occupier he was bound to keep the fences in repair. Tewksbury v. Bucklin, 7 N. H. 518. It was through Ms negligence the cattle escaped. The defendant was a bailee, an agister. Having care and control of the cattle, he might maintain trespass for an injury to them. Bass v. Pierce, 16 Barb. 595. So he…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Barnum v. VandusenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1844
- Bass v. PierceNew York Supreme Court · 1853
- Smith v. JaquesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1827