Nesbett v. Wilbur
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, for the alleged unlawful killing of the plaintiff’s dog while engaged in killing the defendant’s hens on the defendant’s premises. At the trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, the judge found for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions, which, not having been signed by the judge who tried the case, because of his resignation, were allowed by Bond, J. The facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, C. J.
This is an action for killing a dog. The judge before whom the case was tried found, that the dog was engaged in killing the defendant’s hens, that the defendant rightly believed that there was no other way to save them than to kill the dog, and that he was justified in doing so. The plaintiff excepted to a refusal to rule that our statutes took away the common law, and that, not having complied with the statutes, the defendant was liable.
The provision in Pub. Sts. c. 102, § 94, does not take away the rights of the defendant at common law. That section gives a right to “ any person ” to kill…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Blair v. ForehandMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Clark v. KeliherMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Hubbard v. PrestonMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Leonard v. WilkinsNew York Supreme Court · 1812
- Livermore v. BatchelderMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
3Cited by10 opinions
- O'Leary v. WangensteenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
- Commonwealth v. FlynnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
- Kershaw v. McKownAlabama Court of Appeals · 1915
- State v. SylvesterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1941
- Crow v. McKownSupreme Court of Alabama · 1915
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.