Case ID: ohio-law-abs_5/html/0076-05.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 102
    HILL v. MICHOM
    No. 20272.
    Supreme Court
    Ree. Cert, for review of final determination.
    Dock. Jan. 14, 1927,
    5 Abs. 43.
    677. JUDGMENTS — Is a judgment of $75 awarded as damages for wantonly and maliciously killing a dog valid, although such dog was not listed for taxation?
    Attorneys — M. I. Rettig for Hill; E. H. Ray for Michom; both of Toledo.
   Hill contends that a judgment of seventy-five dollars against him is erroneous and same should be quashed, because damages cannot be collected for wantonly killing a dog not listed for taxation.