Felch v. Town of Wears
Decision Date | 28 July 1899 |
Citation | 69 N.H. 617,45 A. 591 |
Parties | FELCH v. TOWN OF WEARS. |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Hillsboro county.
Action by Hiram M. Felch against the town of Weare. From a judgment dismissing the declaration, plaintiff excepts. Exceptions overruled.
Case, to recover the value of the plaintiff's sheep killed by dogs. The declaration alleges that the plaintiff, at Weare, in this county, on the 1st day of May, 1897, "was the owner of a large flock of sheep, and that the same were confined in the plaintiff's close at said Weare; that during said summer of 1897, while lawfully within said close, on divers days, to wit, on the 5th day of May, 1897, and on sundry days thereafter, a large number, to wit, fifty-two, of said sheep were killed by dogs; that the said plaintiff informed one of the selectmen of said town that he had sustained such damage, and requested him to proceed to the premises where the damage was done, and determine whether the same was inflicted by dogs, and, if so, to appraise the amount thereof, if not exceeding twenty dollars, and if, in the opinion of said selectmen, the amount of the damage exceeded twenty dollars, to appoint two disinterested persons, who, with himself, should appraise the amount thereof, according to law, yet the defendants' selectmen, wholly regardless of their duty in the premises, have refused, and do still refuse, to determine the plaintiff's damages, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, whereby the plaintiff has lost the value of his said sheep, and to the damage of the plaintiff, as he says, in the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars." The defendants moved to dismiss, and the motion was granted, subject to the plaintiff's exception.
Drury & Hurd and Sargent & Niles, for plaintiff.
Taggart & Bingham, for defendants.
BLODGETT, C. J. "Whoever suffers loss by the worrying, maiming, or killing of his sheep, lambs, fowls, or other domestic animals by dogs, may inform the mayor of the city or one of the selectmen of the town wherein the damage was done, who shall proceed to the premises where the damage was done, and determine whether the same was inflicted by dogs, and, if so, appraise the amount thereof if not exceeding twenty dollars; if in the opinion of said mayor or selectmen the amount of said damage exceeds twenty dollars, he shall appoint two disinterested persons, who, with himself, shall appraise the amount thereof; and, in either case, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Valentine v. City of Englewood
...Inhabitants of Needham, 176 Mass. 422, 57 N. E. 689; Maxmilian v. Mayor, etc., of New York, 62 N. Y. 160, 20 Am, Rep. 468; Felch v. Weare, 69 N. H. 617, 45 Atl. 591. The city could only be held by applying the rule respondeat superior, and that rule has no application in a case where the pe......
-
Moulton v. Beals
...they act as state officers and 'not as the agents or servants of the town.' Merrill v. Plainfield, 45 N.H. 126, 134; cf. Felch v. Weare, 69 N.H. 617, 45 A. 591; Spinney v. Town of Seabrook, 79 N.H. 34, 36, 104 A. 248; Shea v. City of Portsmouth, 98 N.H. 22, 94 A.2d 902. It is reasonably pla......
- Berry v. Flanders