Uhlein v. Cromack
This text of 109 Mass. 273 (Uhlein v. Cromack) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
By the common law, a dog is property, for an injury to which an action will lie. Wright v. Ramscot, 1 Saund. 84. 2 Bl. Com. 393. In this Commonwealth the keeping of. dogs is regulated by the Gen. Sts. c. 88, §§ 52 & seq., and the St. of 1867, c. 130. The plaintiff kept his dog restrained in conformity with the statutes. Although the dog was a dangerous animal, and accustomed to bite those who came near it, yet, as it was confined, so that all persons properly on the plaintiff’s premises were in no danger from it, and was otherwise kept according to law, and the defendant had not been attacked by it, the jury were properly instructed that the act of the defendant was not justifiable. They were also properly instructed that the plaintiff had a right thus to keep it for the protection of his family.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
109 Mass. 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/uhlein-v-cromack-mass-1872.