Trompen v. Verhage
Nicholas Trompen v. Jan Verhage
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Cooley, C. J.
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.
The other Justices concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.