Quilty v. Battie

New York Supreme Court

Quilty v. Battie

15 N.Y.S. 765, 68 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 164, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 932, 61 Hun 164, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 126

DecidedSeptember 25, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 15 N.Y.S. 765 (Quilty v. Battie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Quilty v. Battie, 15 N.Y.S. 765, 68 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 164, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 932, 61 Hun 164, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 126 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Landon, J.

Defendants were husband and wife, living together upon premises owned by the wife, both contributing to the household expenses. The husband bought a dog, and brought it upon the premises. The jury found, upon evidence justifying the finding, that the dog was vicious, and known by the wife to be so, and that she harbored it upon the premises with knowledge of its vicious propensities. The dog, not being confined, went upon neighboring premises, and there bit the plaintiff. Harboring this dog was the personal act of the wife; allowing it to escape, knowing that its vicious propensities might cause injury to others, was her personal tort, and she was liable for the resulting injury, Genenz v. De Forest, 2 N. Y. Supp. 152; Keenan v. Manufacturing Co., 46 Hun, 544. Being the personal tort of the wife, her husband was properly joined as defendant. Fitzgerald v. Quann, 109 N. Y. 441, 17 N. E. Rep. 354. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

Landon, J.

Defendants were husband and wife, living together upon premises owned by the wife, both contributing to the household expenses. The husband bought a dog, and brought it upon the premises. The jury found, upon evidence justifying the finding, that the dog was vicious, and known by the wife to be so, and that she harbored it upon the premises with knowledge of its vicious propensities. The dog, not being confined, went upon neighboring premises, and there bit the plaintiff. Harboring this dog was the personal act of the wife; allowing it to escape, knowing that its vicious propensities might cause injury to others, was her personal tort, and she was liable for the resulting injury, Genenz v. De Forest, 2 N. Y. Supp. 152; Keenan v. Manufacturing Co., 46 Hun, 544. Being the personal tort of the wife, her husband was properly joined as defendant. Fitzgerald v. Quann, 109 N. Y. 441, 17 N. E. Rep. 354. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 N.Y.S. 765, 68 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 164, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 932, 61 Hun 164, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quilty-v-battie-nysupct-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack