Hilton v. Overly
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 80, Oct. T., 1917, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Feb. T., 1914, No. 40, on verdict for defendant in case of William Roy Hilton v. Howard Overly. Trespass to recover damages for the death of a boar hog. Landis, P. J., charged as follows: Many of the facts which have been presented to you are not in dispute, and some do not appear to have been contradicted. The plaintiff had a boar hog.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 80, Oct. T., 1917, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Feb. T., 1914, No. 40, on verdict for defendant in case of William Roy Hilton v. Howard Overly. Trespass to recover damages for the death of a boar hog. Landis, P. J., charged as follows: Many of the facts which have been presented to you are not in dispute, and some do not appear to have been contradicted. The plaintiff had a boar hog. On the evening of November 6, 1913, that hog was in his barnyard, and, while there, a boar hog, which at least had been owned by the defendant up to or shortly before that time,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Trexler,
The plaintiff and the defendant each owned a boar pig. One evening the defendant’s boar broke into plaintiff’s barnyard and killed his boar. Suit is brought for its value. Three propositions were submitted by the court to the jury in the following language: (1) Was the animal vicious and did the owner know it? (2) Was the animal at the time of the injury in the control, ownership and possession of the defendant? (3) Did the owner permit the animal to run at large? All of these were questions of fact for the jury and under the instructions of the court any one of these…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Dolph v. FerrisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844
- Troth v. WillsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Ramsey v. MartinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bosley v. AndrewsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1957