Trompen v. Verhage
This text of 20 N.W. 53 (Trompen v. Verhage) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The principal question in this case, and the only one we deem it necessary to consider, is whether, under § 2119 of Howell’s Statutes, the plaintiff who sues for the destruction of sheep by dogs, is entitled to recover double damages without proof that the owner of the dogs was aware of the vicious nature of the dogs. We think the statute in very plain terms authorizes it. After expressly giving double damages, it then in immediate connection provides that “it shall not be necessary, in order to sustain an action, to prove that the owner or keeper knew that such dog was accustomed to do such damage or mischief.” This plainly refers to the action for double damages which is given in the first part of the section.
Other questions need no attention.
The judgment must be affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
20 N.W. 53, 54 Mich. 304, 1884 Mich. LEXIS 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trompen-v-verhage-mich-1884.