Reuter v. Swarthout

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Writing for the CourtCROWNHART
PartiesREUTER v. SWARTHOUT.
Decision Date15 January 1924

182 Wis. 453
196 N.W. 847

REUTER
v.
SWARTHOUT.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 15, 1924.


Appeal from Circuit Court, La Crosse County; E. C. Higbee, Judge.

Action by Joseph Reuter against E. C. Swarthout. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed, with directions to dismiss.

An action by the plaintiff below for damages done to his heifers by the defendant's Holstein bull. It appeared that the plaintiff was the owner of a farm adjoining the farm of the defendant. The two farms were separated by a fence. The defendant had leased his farm on shares to a renter, and included in the lease were certain cattle, including the bull before mentioned. The bull was allowed to run at large by the renter, to the knowledge of the defendant, in the field adjoining the plaintiff's field, where his heifers were in pasture. The bull escaped into the field of the plaintiff and occasioned the damage for which the plaintiff had judgment in the sum of $200. From this judgment the defendant appealed. The appellant here claims the court below erred in holding as a matter of law that he suffered the bull to run at large; that it erred in not submitting to the jury the question as to whether the defendant allowed or suffered the bull mentioned in the complaint to run at large; and it erred in refusing the offer of the defendant to prove that the fence between the plaintiff's land and the defendant's land, through which the bull escaped from the defendant's premises onto the premises of the plaintiff, was not a legal line fence.

Section 1482, Stats., as amended by Laws 1903, c. 14, reads as follows:

“No stallion over one year old, nor bull over six months old, nor boar nor ram, nor billy goat over four months old shall run at large; and if the owner or keeper shall, for any reason, suffer any such animal so to do he shall forfeit five dollars to the person taking it up and be liable in addition for all damages done by such animal while so at large, although he escapes without the fault of such owner or keeper; and the construction of any fence enumerated in section 1390 shall not relieve such owner or keeper from liability for any damage committed by an animal of the enumerated class upon the inclosed premises of an adjoining owner.”

[196 N.W. 848]

Winter, Morris, Esch & Holmes, of La Crosse, for appellant.

John F. Doherty, of La Crosse, for respondent.


CROWNHART, J.

[1] (after stating the facts as above). In 1903 (Laws 1903, c. 14) the Legislature added to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Alexander v. Crochett, No. 19322.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 30, 1939
    ...for injuries inflicted by it. 3 C.J. 105; Bell v. Leslie, 24 Mo. App. 661; Schmidt v. Harkness, 3 Mo. App. 585; Reuter v. Swarthart, 196 N.W. 847, 182 Wis. 453; Durham v. Goodwin, 54 Ill. 469; Farrell v. Crawford, 222 Ill. App. 499; 3 C.J. 1267; Janssen v. Voss, 207 N.W. 279, 189 Wis. 222; ......
  • Frost v. Robave, Inc., No. 16638
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • April 21, 1998
    ...one who is not in control of the animal.' " Heyen v. Willis, 94 Ill.App.2d 290, 295, 236 N.E.2d 580 (1968), quoting Reuter v. Swarthout, 182 Wis. 453, 456, 196 N.W. 847, 848 Where a legal owner has custody and control over a dog, he or she is also its keeper. However, when custody and contr......
  • White v. Leeder, No. 87-1628
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • June 1, 1989
    ...has control over the animal. That is how the court used the instruction and we conclude that it was a proper use. In Reuter v. Swarthout, 182 Wis. 453, 456, 196 N.W. 847 (1924), a case involving a statute placing liability upon an "owner or keeper" for damages caused by animals allowed to r......
  • Schroeder v. Moeley
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 15, 1924
    ...Ruehle, 100 Wis. 31, 35, 75 N. W. 425;Bishop v. Bleyer, 105 Wis. 330, 333, 81 N. W. 413;Meyer v. Hope, 101 Wis. 123, 125, 77 N. W. 720; [196 N.W. 847]Perkins v. Perkins, 173 Wis. 421, 426, 180 N. W. 334, 181 N. W. 812. The defendant's testimony having failed to overthrow such presumption, i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Alexander v. Crochett, No. 19322.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 30, 1939
    ...for injuries inflicted by it. 3 C.J. 105; Bell v. Leslie, 24 Mo. App. 661; Schmidt v. Harkness, 3 Mo. App. 585; Reuter v. Swarthart, 196 N.W. 847, 182 Wis. 453; Durham v. Goodwin, 54 Ill. 469; Farrell v. Crawford, 222 Ill. App. 499; 3 C.J. 1267; Janssen v. Voss, 207 N.W. 279, 189 Wis. 222; ......
  • Frost v. Robave, Inc., No. 16638
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • April 21, 1998
    ...one who is not in control of the animal.' " Heyen v. Willis, 94 Ill.App.2d 290, 295, 236 N.E.2d 580 (1968), quoting Reuter v. Swarthout, 182 Wis. 453, 456, 196 N.W. 847, 848 Where a legal owner has custody and control over a dog, he or she is also its keeper. However, when custody and contr......
  • White v. Leeder, No. 87-1628
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • June 1, 1989
    ...has control over the animal. That is how the court used the instruction and we conclude that it was a proper use. In Reuter v. Swarthout, 182 Wis. 453, 456, 196 N.W. 847 (1924), a case involving a statute placing liability upon an "owner or keeper" for damages caused by animals allowed to r......
  • Schroeder v. Moeley
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 15, 1924
    ...Ruehle, 100 Wis. 31, 35, 75 N. W. 425;Bishop v. Bleyer, 105 Wis. 330, 333, 81 N. W. 413;Meyer v. Hope, 101 Wis. 123, 125, 77 N. W. 720; [196 N.W. 847]Perkins v. Perkins, 173 Wis. 421, 426, 180 N. W. 334, 181 N. W. 812. The defendant's testimony having failed to overthrow such presumption, i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT