TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gladstone v. Brinkhurst

HERBERT GLADSTONE v. AUGUST BRINKHURST

Gladstone v. Brinkhurst, 70 N.J.L. 130 (1903)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 9, 1903
Judges
Garretson, Garrison, Swayze
Citations
70 N.J.L. 13041 Vroom 1301903 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 34
Headnotes
The possessor of a dog is' liable'for an injury committed by the dog if he had notice of his mischievous propensities.'
Summary
On appeal from the District Court of Hoboken.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Garretson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Garretson, J.

By1 the judgment of the court below the plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendant for personal injuries and the defendant appeals.

The facts certified to by the judge, as found by him, are as follows: Herbert Gladstone, the plaintiff, about seven years of age, resided with his mother, in Guttenberg, Hudson county, on premises adjoining the premises on which the defendant then resided; said plaintiff was sitting on top of the fence dividing the properties and talking with two children of the defendant, who were on defendant’s premises and who were of about plaintiff’s age, and with whom plaintiff was friendly. That while plaintiff was so engaged a large dog of the St. Bernard breed, kept by the defendant on his premises, rushed suddenly at the plaintiff and bit him. The defendant had been keeping the dog on his premises- for over five months; that the.dog was owned by one Stadler, who brought the dog over to the defendant because the dog had bitten somebody; that the defendant was then aware of such reputed cause; that the defendant knew before the injury to the plaintiff that the dog did not like children and that he had turned on one of the defendant’s own children; that the defendant was not able to keep the dog chained because he was too strong, and he resented and would break loose when tied by the defendant.

This agreed state of facts shows conclusively that the defendant had in his possession and' control a dog of whose mischievous propensities he had notice. He is liable for the injury committed by the dog to the plaintiff. Perkins v. Mossman, 15 Vroom 579 .

The judgment below is affirmed, with costs..

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1909: 11967: 11978: 11983: 119092026peak 1909 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. DeRobertis v. Randazzo462 A.2d 1260 (N.J. 1983)
  2. Tanga v. Tanga226 A.2d 723 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1967)
  3. Emmons v. Stevane73 A. 544 (N.J. 1909)
  4. Jannuzzelli v. Wilkens385 A.2d 322 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1978)

Most recent

  1. DeRobertis v. Randazzo462 A.2d 1260 (N.J. 1983)
  2. Jannuzzelli v. Wilkens385 A.2d 322 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1978)
  3. Tanga v. Tanga226 A.2d 723 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1967)
  4. Emmons v. Stevane73 A. 544 (N.J. 1909)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list