Petey Manufacturing Co. v. Dryden

Superior Court of Delaware

Petey Manufacturing Co. v. Dryden

62 A. 1056, 21 Del. 166, 5 Penne. 166, 1904 Del. LEXIS 45

CourtSuperior Court of Delaware

DecidedApril 12, 1904

DocketNo. 68

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 62 A. 1056 (Petey Manufacturing Co. v. Dryden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Petey Manufacturing Co. v. Dryden, 62 A. 1056, 21 Del. 166, 5 Penne. 166, 1904 Del. LEXIS 45 (Del. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Boyce, J.:

The plaintiff brought an action on the case to re cover damages for the loss of two mules whose death, it is alleged, were caused by the bites and stings of bees belonging to the defendant. The declaration filed is in trespass and not case. Counsel for the defendant, in his motion for a nonsuit, contended that the plaintiff's right of action, if any he may have, rested upon the negligence of the defendant, and that, therefore, a recovery could not be had under the declaration and evidence in this case.

The keeping of bees is recognized as proper and beneficial, and it seems to us that the liability of the owner or keeper thereof for any injury done by them to the person or property of another must rest on the doctrine of negligence; and that the remedy afforded by trespass is inappropriate in a case like this.

Cooley on Torts, 31¡9.

In disposing of the motion before us, we do not deem it necessary to pass upon the degree of care demanded of those who may own or keep bees.

Upon the declaration and evidence in this case, we are unanimous in directing a nonsuit.

Let a nonsuit be entered.

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

Boyce, J.:

The plaintiff brought an action on the case to re cover damages for the loss of two mules whose death, it is alleged, were caused by the bites and stings of bees belonging to the defendant. The declaration filed is in trespass and not case. Counsel for the defendant, in his motion for a nonsuit, contended that the plaintiff's right of action, if any he may have, rested upon the negligence of the defendant, and that, therefore, a recovery could not be had under the declaration and evidence in this case.

The keeping of bees is recognized as proper and beneficial, and it seems to us that the liability of the owner or keeper thereof for any injury done by them to the person or property of another must rest on the doctrine of negligence; and that the remedy afforded by trespass is inappropriate in a case like this.

Cooley on Torts, 31¡9.

In disposing of the motion before us, we do not deem it necessary to pass upon the degree of care demanded of those who may own or keep bees.

Upon the declaration and evidence in this case, we are unanimous in directing a nonsuit.

Let a nonsuit be entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A. 1056, 21 Del. 166, 5 Penne. 166, 1904 Del. LEXIS 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petey-manufacturing-co-v-dryden-delsuperct-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack