Copeland v. Landrum

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Copeland v. Landrum

147 S.E.2d 802, 113 Ga. App. 341, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 1059

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 17, 1966

Docket41773

StatusPublished

This text of 147 S.E.2d 802 (Copeland v. Landrum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Copeland v. Landrum, 147 S.E.2d 802, 113 Ga. App. 341, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 1059 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Pannell, Judge.

1. In this action 'by a plaintiff owner against a defendant for the alleged wilful and malicious killing by the defendant of a dog belonging to plaintiff and seeking general and punitive damages, the evidence was sufficient to authorize a finding that the defendant shot and killed the dog in question in the honest belief that said dog was the same dog, also belonging to the plaintiff, that had previously bitten a child and was vicious, and that the dog killed had just attacked defendant’s child and was about to attack him. The trial judge, to whom the case was submitted, without the intervention of a jury, therefore, did not err in finding for the defendant. See, in this connection, Johnston v. Wilson, 32 Ga. App. 348, 351 (123 SE 222).

2. There was no error in admitting testimony that another dog of the plaintiff, similar to the one killed, had attacked a small child, and was vicious, in view of the testimony of the defendant that he could not tell the two dogs apart, as this testimony was admissible for the purpose of showing, with other evidence, that the killing of the dog in this case was not wilful or malicious.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Frankum, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pannell, Judge.

1. In this action 'by a plaintiff owner against a defendant for the alleged wilful and malicious killing by the defendant of a dog belonging to plaintiff and seeking general and punitive damages, the evidence was sufficient to authorize a finding that the defendant shot and killed the dog in question in the honest belief that said dog was the same dog, also belonging to the plaintiff, that had previously bitten a child and was vicious, and that the dog killed had just attacked defendant’s child and was about to attack him. The trial judge, to whom the case was submitted, without the intervention of a jury, therefore, did not err in finding for the defendant. See, in this connection, Johnston v. Wilson, 32 Ga. App. 348, 351 (123 SE 222).

2. There was no error in admitting testimony that another dog of the plaintiff, similar to the one killed, had attacked a small child, and was vicious, in view of the testimony of the defendant that he could not tell the two dogs apart, as this testimony was admissible for the purpose of showing, with other evidence, that the killing of the dog in this case was not wilful or malicious.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Frankum, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 S.E.2d 802, 113 Ga. App. 341, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 1059, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/copeland-v-landrum-gactapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack