Remele v. Donahue
Supreme Court of Vermont
Action under the statute for damage done to the plaintiff’s sheep by the defendant’s dog. Jury trial, June, 1881,'Pierpoint, Ch. J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The plaintiff, after stating that he notified Mr. Hammond, the first selectman of Middlebury, of his injury, testified as follows: Q. He went and examined the sheep, did he, and you were with him? A. Yes.
Read the full summary
Action under the statute for damage done to the plaintiff’s sheep by the defendant’s dog. Jury trial, June, 1881,'Pierpoint, Ch. J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The plaintiff, after stating that he notified Mr. Hammond, the first selectman of Middlebury, of his injury, testified as follows: Q. He went and examined the sheep, did he, and you were with him? A. Yes. Q. And he appointed two appraisers, one of whom was Mr. U. D. Twitchell and the other Hubbard C. Potter, did he not ? A. Yes, both of them were together and went and looked over the sheep. Q. Did you show them…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redfield, J.
This is an action, founded on the statute, to recover damages for the killing and maiming of plaintiff’s sheep, by defendant’s dog.
The defendant claimed that the plaintiff had proceeded against the town of Middlebury under the statute, by notifying the first selectman of that town, of the damages he had suffered, and causing the damages to be appraised, as required by the statute. The evidence tended to show that plaintiff, in that proceeding did not elect to proceed under the statute for his share of the “dog money” in the town treasury ;…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Russell v. TomlinsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1817
- Rowe v. BirdSupreme Court of Vermont · 1876
3Cited by2 opinions
- Miller v. ProughMissouri Court of Appeals · 1920
- Fairchild v. RichSupreme Court of Vermont · 1895