Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-04-25
ARE DOGS PROPERTY?

A case was argued recently in the city of
New York, before Justice Dougherty in
volving the discussion of the question as to
whether dogs are property. The defense
was made TO a suit for stolen dog that
dogs were ferB nature, and did not come
within the definition of the word "proper-
ty." The Justice very decidedly secuted
this idea, and gave judgment in full for the
amount claimed, with costs. He held that
dogs had value attached to them accord
ing to the purposes for which they are kept.
Dogs kept for hunting had value calcula-
ted upon the same basis as horses kept for
racing or trotting.
In hunting up the authorities says the
TlUf, Field and Farm, we find that all the
elementary works, Kent, Blackstone, and
,thers, state that all things are property,
outside of real estate, although some quail
Eedly SC, instancing air, light and water as
Of the latter class. We found in ''Kent's
Commentaries" lecture So, volume 2, part
), section 333: "a qualified property by
reason of the nature Of things, as in the ell
ements Of air, light and water, which are
subjects of qualified property by occupancy,
and, as in animals, .ferT nature while re-
claimed. While this qualified property con-
tinUes, it is under the protection of the
law" This seems to MS, adds that paper,
to cover the whole ground, and, in default
Of any existing decisions, it would seem to
warrant any that might he made in favor Of
dogs as property. in tie rural districts it
is a common thing for the owne-s-and how
can party own a thing fit is not properly
of dogs to be sued for damages
for the slaughter of sheep owned
by their Deighbors. When the owner
ship of the dog is proven, every dollar Of
damage has to be paid. fla dog is not
property, how can the reputed owner be
mulcted in damages for an action commit
ted by something that has no owner? The
very face of the thing shows the fallacy of
the argument. 1t is a poor rule that won't
work both ways. If we can be made to pay
damages for Unaccountable actions com
mitted by our dogs, we certainly ought to
be able to recover when-tO use a hOmely
but forcible phrase-the boot is on the other
leg.
This question is one which is assuming
an interesting phase in our own State. If
dogs are property we do not see how our
tax assessors can disregard that clause in
orr Constitution which provides that, " All
property, real, personal or mixed shall be
taxed" The Legislature is empowered to
except such as may be held by the State, by
counties, cities or towns. Dogs do not
come within the list of exceptions and
should be given in just as horses, cows and
other stock. We suppose no tax assessor
has ever asked the question as to the value
of a dog. The asking of the question, look
Won, would have tendency to keep down
the large number of worthless dogs in the
State. which prowl, and growl, and howl
over the land, destroying sheep, running
down pigs, stealing into kitchens and COM
hitting depredations upon the property of
others. " arren county has recently i'm
posed a tax upon dogs, which action could
with propriety be called step by the Coun-
ty Court for the encouragement of wool
growing. Let others follow her example,
until our hillsides are covered with white
flOcBs.