Case Name: Edward Ellingsen, an Infant, by Annie Ellingsen, His Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, v. Carl G. F. Linstrand, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-07-23
Citations: 121 A.D. 268
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edward Ellingsen, an Infant, by Annie Ellingsen, His Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, v. Carl G. F. Linstrand, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 121
Pages: 268–269

Head Matter:
Edward Ellingsen, an Infant, by Annie Ellingsen, His Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, v. Carl G. F. Linstrand, Respondent.
Second Department,
July 23, 1907.
Animal — injury by vicious dog —- erroneous nonsuit.
Under evidence sufficient to warrant a jury in believing that the defendant’s dog, which bit the plaintiff, was kept by the defendant for several years' with knowledge of his vicious disposition, and that the attack, was not invited by the plaintiff, who entered the stable where the dog was confined at the request of the defendant’s stableman, it is error to dismiss the complaint.
Appeal by the plaintiff, Edward Ellingsen, an infant, by Annie Ellingsen, his guardian ad litem, from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York in favor of the defendant^ rendered on the iRh day of February, 1907,." dismissing plaintiff’s complaint -at the close of his evidence, in an action brought to recover' damages, alleged tb have been sustained in ■ consequence of - his haying been bitten by a dbg owned by defendant, and kept in his stable as a watch dog: '
William Adams Robinson, for the appellant.
Dean Potter for the respondent.

Opinion:
Rich, J.:
The only question to he considered is whether the plaintiff .made out a case entitling him to go to the jury. While the evidence might not he regarded as entirely satisfactory, yet there was sufficient, if the jury believed it, upon which to base a finding that this was a ferocious, dog,, kept by defendant for several year's, with knowledge of his vicious disposition, arid that the attack -on plaintiff '.was not invited; that he was not at fault. Plaintiff entered the stable where the dog' was confined, at the request of defendant's stableman in -charge, to hold a lantern, and was immediately attacked by the dog and severely bitten. , - .
We think the plaintiff made out-a case éntitling him to go'to the jury upon all the questions involved,- and the' judgment must, therefore, be reversed and a new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.
Woodwabd, Jenks, Hookee and' Gaynoe, JJ., concurred; the latter in separate memorandum. •