Knight v. Abert
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
" In-error from the'Common Pleas of Clarion county. • Oct. 1. Case.- — The defendant was the owner of unenclos’e.d woodland,' in which he had dug an ore-pit. The plaintiff’s ox had wandered on'the land, and fallen into the pit, and was thereby kiífed. For this the action was brought.
1Opinion of the Court
Gibson, C.' J.
In this, and perhaps every other American state, an owner of cattle is.not liable to an action for their browsing on his neighbour’s unenclosed woodland. But it .follows' not that because such .browsing is excusable ás a trespass, it is matter of right. It is an immunity, not a privilege; 'or, at niost,- a license, revokable at the will of the tenant, who may turn his neighbour’s cattl.e away from his grounds at' pleasure. Their entry is, in strictness, a trespass, which; for its insignificance, is not noticed by the law, probably on the. foot of the maxim, de minimis, or per- ’…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Stark County Agricultural Society v. BrennerOhio Supreme Court · 1930
- Iamurri v. Saginaw City Gas Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1907
- White v. Rio Grande Western Railway Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1903
- Diffenderfer v. StanerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Bannon v. The Pennsylvania RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.