Stern v. Hoffman Brewing Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Stern v. Hoffman Brewing Co.

26 Misc. 794, 56 N.Y.S. 188

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 15, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 26 Misc. 794 (Stern v. Hoffman Brewing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stern v. Hoffman Brewing Co., 26 Misc. 794, 56 N.Y.S. 188 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

MacLean, J.

The complaint was dismissed on the ground that the alleged damage was caused by the malicious conduct of a domestic animal, and the plaintiff failed to establish previous knowledge of vicious inclination.

According to the uncontradicted testimony of the plaintiff, the horses of the defendant were upon a sidewalk, at large and unattended, and, in passing, one of them jumped and bit a piece out of his coat. They were admittedly where they had no right to be, and where, presumably, they would not have been, if attended.Under such circumstances, failure to prove scienter will not relieve the owner of responsibility, “ the vice of the animal being an essential fact only when, but for it, the conduct of the owner [795]*795would be free from fault.” Dickson v. McCoy, 89 N. Y. 400, 401.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Freedman, P. J., and Leventritt, J., concur.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

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

MacLean, J.

The complaint was dismissed on the ground that the alleged damage was caused by the malicious conduct of a domestic animal, and the plaintiff failed to establish previous knowledge of vicious inclination.

According to the uncontradicted testimony of the plaintiff, the horses of the defendant were upon a sidewalk, at large and unattended, and, in passing, one of them jumped and bit a piece out of his coat. They were admittedly where they had no right to be, and where, presumably, they would not have been, if attended.Under such circumstances, failure to prove scienter will not relieve the owner of responsibility, “ the vice of the animal being an essential fact only when, but for it, the conduct of the owner [795]*795would be free from fault.” Dickson v. McCoy, 89 N. Y. 400, 401.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Freedman, P. J., and Leventritt, J., concur.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 Misc. 794, 56 N.Y.S. 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stern-v-hoffman-brewing-co-nyappterm-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack