Loomis v. Terry
New York Supreme Court
Error from the Oneida common pleas. Terry sued Loomis in a justice’s court, and declared against him in an action on the case, for keeping dogs accustomed to bite mankind, and that the dogs thus kept had bit the son and servant of the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave notice that he would prove on the trial that the plaintiff’s son was at the time trespassing on his grounds. The cause was tried before a jury.
Read the full summary
Error from the Oneida common pleas. Terry sued Loomis in a justice’s court, and declared against him in an action on the case, for keeping dogs accustomed to bite mankind, and that the dogs thus kept had bit the son and servant of the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave notice that he would prove on the trial that the plaintiff’s son was at the time trespassing on his grounds. The cause was tried before a jury. It appeared that the plaintiff’s son, aged 16, and a number of other boys, were hunting in the woods of the defendant on a Sunday, where the plaintiff’s son…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Cowen, J.
No doubt the plaintiff’s son was a trespasser on the defendant’s premises. It is said the general practice of entering on another’s grounds to hunt for wild animals would warrant the jury in finding a license. No evidence was’given of that practice; and the jury must, I think, have found as matter of law, tnat a trespasser is not without protection from a ferocious dog on the premises. Whether he forfeits all protection from the mere circumstances of being wrongfully there, is the question, and I think the only question of law which the plaintiff in error can raise upon…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Walsh v. Fitchburg RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- Graham v. PayneIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Kinmouth v. McDougallNew York Supreme Court · 1892
- Leonard v. Donohoe, New York County Courts1913
- Thomas v. BoysonOhio Circuit Courts · 1901
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.