Smith v. St. Paul City Railway Company

• Decision Date: 19 April 1900
• Docket Number: 12,067 - (161)
• Citation: Smith v. St. Paul City Railway Company, 82 N.W. 577, 79 Minn. 254 (Minn. 1900)
• Parties: GEORGE P. SMITH v. ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY COMPANY
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

82 N.W. 577

79 Minn. 254

GEORGE P. SMITH v. ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY COMPANY

Nos. 12,067 - (161)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

April 19, 1900

Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $250 damages for killing plaintiff's dog.The case was tried before Kelly, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $50.From an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trialdefendant appealed.Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Dogs.

Dogs are personal property in this state, and an action will lie in favor of the owner of a dog, having a substantial money value, for its destruction through the negligence of a third party.

Municipal Ordinances.

A municipal ordinance authorizing a police officer to destroy a dog which is unlicensed, or not wearing a collar or muzzle as required thereby, does not authorize a third party to kill such animal, or relieve him from damages for negligently destroying the same.

Street Railway -- Verdict Sustained by Evidence.

Facts in this case considered, and held that the evidence supports the verdict of the jury, and their finding that the collision between defendant's street car and a valuable dog was actionable negligence, for which the owner of the dog might recover its value from the defendant.

Munn & Thygeson, for appellant.

McDonald & Kelly, for respondent.

OPINION

LOVELY, J.

Action against defendant for negligently running one of its street cars in the city of St. Paul upon, and thereby killing, a valuable dog belonging to plaintiff, who had a verdict.A motion for judgment(or, if denied, for a new trial) was overruled, from which order this appeal brings the record, with the evidence, into this court for review.

The defendant contends that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the street-car company in running its car upon the dog, and that the court below erred in excluding an ordinance providing that dogs in the city of St. Paul must be licensed, and that a dog may be destroyed by an officer if not so licensed, or muzzled or wearing a collar in evidence of such license.

Accepting (as we are bound to do) in favor of the verdict every reasonable inference which may be drawn from the evidence in its support, we must hold upon the first contention that plaintiff owned the dog that was killed; that it was highly bred, large in size, and of substantial money value; also that on the day of the accident, in the absence of the owner from home, his wife had a number of dogs (among them the one killed), for exhibition to third parties, in the yard of the family residence, which adjoined Grand avenue, one of the streets of the city upon which defendant's tracks were laid, and over which its cars were operated.The dogs escaped from the yard and control of plaintiff's wife, and went to the opposite side of the street, followed by plaintiff's child,...