McLaughlin v. Kemp

25 N.E. 18, 152 Mass. 7, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 6
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided June 21, 1890·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Field, J.

It was admitted that the husband was the owner of the dog which bit John E. McLaughlin. We infer from the exceptions that he was also owner of all the dogs. A wife is not necessarily, as matter of law, a keeper of dogs which her husband owns and keeps on premises which she owns, and which both occupy as husband and wife, although she carries on a separate business upon the premises.

It was a question of fact for the jury whether the wife was the keeper of the dogs, and the ruling that, “ if they were her husband’s dogs, and he kept them there against her consent and contrary to her consent, and she did nothing to maintain or keep them, did not give them food, or protect them, of provide for them in any way, she would not be in the sense of the law a keeper of the dogs,” was correct. The instructions given were sufficiently favorable to the plaintiffs.

Exceptions overruled.

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

McLaughlin v. Kemp, 25 N.E. 18, 152 Mass. 7, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 6 (Mass. 1890).

25 N.E. 18 (McLaughlin v. Kemp) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Equi v. Licari
1985 Mass. App. Div. 181 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1985)
Fozzy v. Kelley
1 Mass. App. Dec. 125 (U.S. District Court, 1941)
Koetting v. Conroy
270 N.W. 625 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1937)
Bottcher v. Buck
265 Mass. 4 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)
Cruickshank v. Brockton Agricultural Society
157 N.E. 357 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1927)
Anderson v. Middlebrook
89 N.E. 157 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1909)
Burch v. Lowary
109 N.W. 282 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1906)
Boylan v. Everett
52 N.E. 541 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1899)
Whittemore v. Thomas
26 N.E. 875 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1891)