Livermore v. Batchelder

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Livermore v. Batchelder

5 N.E. 275, 141 Mass. 179, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 159

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided February 25, 1886·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Holmes, J.

The ruling of the court, as we understand it, meant that the facts found, without more, did not disclose a justification for killing the plaintiff’s dog. It was found that the defendant had reasonable cause to believe that the dog was proceeding to maim and kill his hens, but not that he had reasonable cause to believe that it was necessary to kill the dog in order to prevent him from killing the hens. The justification, therefore, was not made out. Wright v. Ramscot, 1 Saund. 84. Janson v. Brown, 1 Camp. 41. See Commonwealth v. Woodward, 102 Mass. 155, 161.

It is unnecessary to consider whether the common law remedy is taken away by the Pub. Sts. c. 102, §§ 80-110.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Holmes, J.

The ruling of the court, as we understand it, meant that the facts found, without more, did not disclose a justification for killing the plaintiff’s dog. It was found that the defendant had reasonable cause to believe that the dog was proceeding to maim and kill his hens, but not that he had reasonable cause to believe that it was necessary to kill the dog in order to prevent him from killing the hens. The justification, therefore, was not made out. Wright v. Ramscot, 1 Saund. 84. Janson v. Brown, 1 Camp. 41. See Commonwealth v. Woodward, 102 Mass. 155, 161.

It is unnecessary to consider whether the common law remedy is taken away by the Pub. Sts. c. 102, §§ 80-110.

Exceptions overruled.

Livermore v. Batchelder, 5 N.E. 275, 141 Mass. 179, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 159 (Mass. 1886).

Pincite

5 N.E. 275 (Livermore v. Batchelder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related