The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1882-11-15
Interesting to Farmers.

interesting to EarmcrS.
Among the cases appealed to the
Supreme Court and argued atits sit
ting in Philadelphia last spring, was
that of Dantez ct al, VS.. Mcllvain ct
al. The defendants below and plain
titis in error live near the Gap. in
Lancaster county, and are engaged
in the business Of farming. As such
they were the owners of IA stallion.
about two years old, which, on June
9th, broke out of the barn ward
where he was enclosed, and got on
to the public road, where he was
running loose. Mrs. Lanz, the
| plaintiff below, in company with a
friend, was driving along the read.
when they saw the stallion coming
down the road, but not knowing
that he was a stallion. When they
met, the stallion Immediately began
to rear up on their horse. on the
right aId left side and in front. Du-
ring this time Mrs. Lantz, who was
/ trying 90 get out Of tbc rockawav.
fell and broke her leg. Suit was
brought Tor the injury, and upon the
trial of the case, there was verdict
in favor of the plaintiff for $500:
whereupon the defendants took a
writ of error to the Supreme Court,
which affirmed the judgement of the
Court. Judge Mercur, in his decis-
ion said
This is a case Of negligence. The
injury was caused by the negligence
OF the plaintiffs in error in permit.
ting a stallion Of theirs to escape
from the yard in which he had been
kept and to roam on the public high
way. The stallion was two years
old, and was kept in the barnyard
with another colt. The fence euclos-
ing the yard was claimed 10 be as
good as those which generally en-
close the barnyards of farmers. The
jury have found that a stallion at
the age of this one, as a class, have
vicious prOpensities and are COM
monty known to have them that
they are liable and likely to do dam
age; that the plaintiffs in error were
negligent and careless in keeping
their stallion, and did not have suf-
ficient and proper fences around the
enclosure in which they bad him
confined, and from which he es-
capped, to keep him properly con-
fined, and that they did not use pre-
cautions necessary and proper to
keep such an animal from escaping,
straying and rowing loose upon the
public highway, and endangering
the travelling public, and that he be-
ing at large ON the public road was
the proximate cause of the injury
complained of The court was re-
quested to charge if the jury believe
that at the time the defendants
horse broke out of their barnyard it
was enclosed by such a fence as is
common among farmers, and usually
considered safe to con6ne the farm
stock, including such a horse az that
of the defendants, they were not
guilty of negligence and the plaint-
iff cannot recover"
The court refused to so instruct
the Jury. In this We see no error.
The fact that the fence may have
been such as Is common among
farmers and usually considered safe
does not take from the Jury the right
te find, under all the evidence,
whether the fence was sufficient.
The evidence was conflicting as to
the height of the fence and not clear
as to its condition otherwise. The
fact was undisputed that the colt
jumped over it. The injury was
on the fifth of June. An
uncontradicted witness testified that
he saw the stallion at large on the
public highway in the latter part Of
April previous, and a boy drive it
into the barnyaTd. The well known
habits and natural inclination of
stations require a degree of precaU-
ton which the owners did not exer-
else. IL is no answer that other
farmers may have been equally neg
Iigent. Two men who were in the
employ of the plaintiffs in error saw
the stallion break from the yard, yet
L was suffered TO remain in the pub
lie highway some five hours before
the injury was sustained.