Case Name: MILLER v. LOHRMANN et al.
Court: New York Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1914-12-17
Citations: 150 N.Y.S. 488
Docket Number: 
Parties: MILLER v. LOHRMANN et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 150
Pages: 488–489

Head Matter:
MILLER v. LOHRMANN et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
December 17, 1914.)
Animals (§ 68 )—Liability fob Dogs.
One who harbored a vicious dog, knowing that it had bitten others, is liable to a person bitten.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Animals, Cent. Dig. §§ 225, 226; Dec. Dig. § 68.*]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.
Action by John Miller against William Lohrmann and another. From an order setting aside a verdict for plaintiff, and granting a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Order reversed, and judgment reinstated.
Argued November term, 1914, before LEHMAN, DELANY, and WHITAKER, JJ.
Maurice Millimet, of New York City, for appellant.
Walter G. Evans, of New York City (O. M. Quackenbush, of counsel), for respondents.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
WHITAKER, J.
Plaintiff claims that his boy was bitten by a dog owned or was pay out $66.30 for medical services to the boy. The case was tried before the court and a jury. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The court set it aside, stating no specific grounds. There was ample evidence that the boy was bitten; that the amount of money for which the verdict was rendered was expended for medical services, etc.; that the defendants harbored the dog; that it had bitten others, of which defendants had notice; that it was kept as a watch dog, and was vicious. All the facts necessary to sustain plaintiff's claim were testified to by witnesses.
The order should be reversed, with costs, and the judgment reinstated. All concur.