Harrington v. Hall

Citations

• 22 Del. 72
• 6 Penne. 72
• 63 A. 875
• 1906 Del. LEXIS 25

Syllabus

<p>Trespass; Dog—Registered—Personal Property—Killing—Justifiable; When Attacking another’s Property—Not Justifia— ble) When merely Trespassing—Damages— Not Exemplary.</p> <p>1. When a dog is registered under the act, Chapter 48, Vol. 16, Laws of Delaware, he becomes personal property, and as such is the subject of larceny. Any one unlawfully killing a dog so registered is,liable to the owner for the value of the dog.</p> <p>2. A person may not maliciously injure or kill a dog for a mere trespass upon his premises, and the posting of notices against trespassing by dogs will not therefore excuse or justify an unlawful killing of a dog found upon the premises. The remedy for such trespassing is, in a proper case, against the owner of the dog.</p> <p>3. If the dog of the plaintiff was on the land of the defendant and in the act of destroying his turkeys, at the time he was killed by the defendant, or by his son under the father’s directions, the killing was justifiable and the plaintiff cannot recover. If the dog was not attacking the turkeys, but was running across the defendant’s field in pursuit of a fox, or was merely trespassing upon the premises of the defendant, the killing Was without justification and the plaintiff would be entitled to recover.</p> <p>4. If the dog was killed by the son of the defendant, either under the general or special direction of the father, the act of killing was, in contemplation of law, the act of the defendant.</p> <p>5. The case not considered by the Court a proper one for punitive or exemplary damages, the measure of damages would be simply the value of the dog as shown by the testimony.</p> <p>6. At common law the owner of a dog might maintain a civil action for the unlawful injury thereto or killing thereof.</p>