Comerford v. Dupuy
COMERFORD v. DUPUY
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Joseph G. Baldwin (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Baldwin
Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Fields, C. J. concurring.
The judgment must be affirmed. The criticism of the answer in this case cannot be maintained ; at least, the defects suggested were not sufficient to sustain the motion to strike out. We cannot interfere with the discretion of the Court in refusing a new trial.
We think a party cannot recover for injuries done by cattle of / defendant breaking into plaintiff’s close, unless the land entered be inclosed by a fence of the character prescribed in the statute, or at least, by an inclosure equivalent to that described in the statute in /its capacity to exclude cattle. (See Pennsylvania cases cited in respondents’ brief.)
Judgment affirmed.
Cited by
- Blevins v. Mullally Civ. No. 1128. · 1913-08-05
- Merritt v. Hill No. 18120 · 1894-09-25
- Hahn v. Garratt No. 9045 · 1886-03-24
- Logan v. Gedney · 1869-07-01