Harvey v. Buchannan
| Decision Date | 09 December 1904 |
| Citation | 49 S.E. 281,121 Ga. 384 |
| Parties | HARVEY v. BUCHANNAN. [*] |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The owner of a vicious or dangerous animal, who allows the same to go at liberty, is liable to one who sustains injury, as a result of the vicious or dangerous tendency of the animal only in the event that the owner knows its vicious or dangerous character. If he does not know this fact, he will not be liable for an injury which is not the usual and natural consequence to be anticipated from allowing an ordinary animal of that kind to go at large.
Error from Superior Court, Floyd County; W. M. Henry, Judge.
Action by J. A. Buchannan against W. E. Harvey. Verdict for plaintiff. Defendant's certiorari was overruled, and he brings error. Reversed.
McHenry & Maddox, for plaintiff in error.
Junius F. Hillyer, for defendant in error.
This suit originated in a justice's court. The plaintiff was the owner of a kid, of the alleged value of $1. The defendant was the owner of a mule, and the record discloses that "her name was Maud." The cause of controversy was the death of the kid at the hands, or, to speak more accurately, at the mouth and fore feet, of the mule. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $1 damages and $26.05 costs. The defendant complains because the court overruled his certiorari.
It appears from the evidence that the mule was at large, and entered the pasture of the owner of the kid, the pasture not being protected by a lawful fence. While the record discloses the district in which the suit was brought, and therefore the district in which the defendant resided, it does not disclose the district in which the pasture of the plaintiff was located. The stock law is in force only in some of the districts in Floyd county, in which the cause of action arose. We therefore, cannot determine from the record whether the case should be controlled by rules which would be applicable in a stock-law district, or by those which would apply in a district in which fences are maintained. In those districts where the stock law has been adopted, it is the duty of the owners of stock to keep them in inclosures protected by lawful fences, and a mule at large in such a district would be a trespassing animal. In those districts where the stock law has not been adopted, it is the duty of owners of land to protect their premises and crops by lawful fences against animals which are allowed to go at large. In the one case the owner of the animal would have been at fault in negligently allowing it to go at large; in the other case he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alropa Corp. v. Pomerance
... ... demand the inference that it was noticed by the lawmaking ... body, before the presumption against a change may be ... overthrown.' In Harvey v. Buchanan, 121 Ga. 384, ... 49 S.E. 281, 282, this court had occasion to construe section ... 3821 of the Code of 1895 (Code of 1933, § ... ...
-
Chandler v. Gately, s. 44075
...gist of the action. Conway v. Grant, 88 Ga. 40, 13 S.E. 803; Reed v. Southern Express Co., 95 Ga. 108, 22 S.E. 133.' Harvey v. Buchanan, 121 Ga. 384, 385, 49 S.E. 281, 282. When this statement (or these statements) in her affidavits as to the defendant's scienter is discarded from considera......
-
Steagald v. Eason
...to show, not only that the animal was vicious or dangerous, but also that the owner [or keeper] knew this fact." Harvey v. Buchannan , 121 Ga. 384, 385, 49 S.E. 281 (1904). See also Friedman v. Goodman , 124 Ga. 532, 535, 52 S.E. 892 (1905). Our law does not presume that dogs are vicious or......
-
Hulsey v. Hightower
...animal of a harmless species." Phillips v. Dewald, 79 Ga. 732 (1), 7 S. E. 151, 152, 11 Am. St. Rep. 458. In the case of Harvey v. Buchanan, 121 Ga. 384, 49 S. E. 281, it was held that the owner of a dangerous or vicious mule who allows the same to go at large "is liable to one who sustains......
-
Torts - David A. Sleppy and Lisa J. Bucko
...239 Ga. App. 147, 148-49, 521 S.E.2d 71, 73 (1999)). 148. Id. 149. Id. 150. Id., 556 S.E.2d at 869-70 (citing Harvey v. Buchanan, 121 Ga. 384, 385, 49 S.E. 281, 282 (1904)). 151. Id. at 676, 556 S.E.2d at 870 (citing Wade v. Am. Nat'l Ins. Co., 246 Ga. App. 458, 461, 540 S.E.2d 671, 673-74 ......