Pool v. Clark
| Decision Date | 10 July 1944 |
| Docket Number | 4-7413 |
| Citation | 182 S.W.2d 217,207 Ark. 635 |
| Parties | Pool v. Clark |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Washington Circuit Court; J. W. Trimble, Judge.
Affirmed.
G T. Sullins and Rex W. Perkins, for appellant.
Harvey L. Joyce and Glen Wing, for appellee.
Appellant and appellee are neighbors, each farming land in the White River bottom in Durham township, Washington county, Arkansas. The running at large of cattle in this township was made unlawful by the provisions of Act 103 of the General Assembly of Arkansas of 1907, as amended by Act 273 of the General Assembly of Arkansas of 1909, put in effect by the voters at an election held in 1921. After his fence was damaged by a flood from the river some of appellant's cattle strayed from his premises on to the land of appellee where they ate, trampled and otherwise damaged appellee's field of oats and Lespedeza. Appellee sued appellant for $ 150 for damages thus done to his crops, and was awarded $ 60 by the trial jury. From judgment on the verdict comes this appeal.
Appellant does not contend here that his cattle did not damage appellee's crops, but urges that the lower court erred in not presenting to the jury appellant's theory of the law as to liability and in improperly instructing the jury on the measure of damages.
Appellant argues that the owner of cattle in a district where the running at large of cattle has been made unlawful by statute is not liable for damage done to the crops of another by his cattle unless their escape from the owner's enclosure is caused by negligence of the owner; and appellant sought to avoid liability by showing that his fence was damaged by an overflow, and that his cattle escaped from his pasture before he had an opportunity to make the necessary repairs thereon. The lower court refused to adopt appellant's theory, but told the jury that if the lands of both parties were in the "fencing district" it was the duty of appellant to "keep his cattle enclosed and restrain them from running at large," and that, if appellee sustained damage by reason of appellant's cattle entering appellee's field, appellee should recover.
The lower court properly stated the law. The statute requires all persons in the territory in which it is made operative by vote of the electors to restrain their stock. It does not provide merely that they must use proper diligence to keep their cattle in enclosures. The language of the statute is that (after adoption by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vendrella v. Astriab Family Ltd.
...loose, more or less dangerous on sidewalks and streets and all men know this” [internal quotation marks omitted] ); Pool v. Clark, 207 Ark. 635, 637, 182 S.W.2d 217 (1944) (“[i]t is a well-known propensity of livestock, such as horses, cattle, sheep and other domestic animals to graze upon,......
-
Vendrella v. Astriab Family Ltd. P'ship, SC18949
...loose, more or less dangerous on sidewalks and streets and all men know this" [internal quotation marks omitted]); Pool v. Clark, 207 Ark. 635, 637, 182 S.W.2d 217 (1944) ("[i]t is a well-known propensity of livestock, such as horses, cattle, sheep and other domestic animals to graze upon, ......
-
Vangilder v. Faulk
...statute. Chism v. Phelps, 228 Ark. 936, 311 S.W.2d 297, 77 A.L.R.2d 329. The doctrine of absolute liability was applied in Pool v. Clark, 207 Ark. 635, 182 S.W.2d 217. That case is not authority requiring the application of the doctrine here, however, because the stock law involved there ab......
-
Oliver v. Jones
...196, 32 S.W. 505, 30 L.R.A. 607; Fraser v. Hawkins, 137 Ark. 214, 208 S.W. 296; Field v. Viraldo, 141 Ark. 32, 216 S.W. 8; Pool v. Clark, 207 Ark. 635, 182 S.W.2d 217; and Favre v. Medlock, 212 Ark. 911, 208 S.W.2d 439. See also the Opinion by Judge Lemley in Poole v. Gillison, D.C., 15 F.R......