Case Name: Seth Wheatley vs. Sneed Harris
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1857-04
Citations: 4 Sneed 468
Docket Number: 
Parties: Seth Wheatley vs. Sneed Harris.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 36
Pages: 468–470

Head Matter:
Seth Wheatley vs. Sneed Harris.
Domestic Animals. A dog is property. The owner of a dog has such a property in him that he may maintain an action for killing or injuring the dog.
EROM SHELBY.
This is an action of trespass from the. Common Law Court of Memphis for killing a dog. At the March Term, 1857, there was a verdict for the plaintiff, upon which Judge OaRütheRS rendered judgment. The defendant appealed in error.
S. Bailey and W. K. Poston, for the plaintiff in error.
Yollentine, TREadwell, and Sullivan, for the defendant in error.

Opinion:
McKinney, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This was an action of trespass, commenced before a justice of Shelby, for shooting a dog. On an appeal to the Circuit Court, the plaintiff recovered judgment for $25; to reverse which the case is brought here.
Upon the question whether the owner of a dog has such a property as will entitle him to maintain an action for hilling or injuring the dog, there can he no doubt. The ancient authorities are clear upon this point. In Cro. Eliz., 125, it is laid down that the law takes notice of a greyhound, mastiff, dog, spaniel, and tumbler, and trover will lie for them. See also Cro. James, 44. A man hath a property in a mastiff; and where a mastiff falls on another dog, the owner of the latter dog cannot justify the killing the mastiff, unless there was no other way to save his dog, as that he could not take off the mastiff, etc. 1 Saund. 84; 8 Salk., 139. The owner of a dog is hound to muzzle him, if he he mischievous, hut not otherwise; and if a man doth keep a dog that useth to bite cattle, etc., if, after notice given to him of it, or his knowing the dog is mischievous, the creature shall do any hurt, the master shall answer for it. Cro. Charles, 254, 487; Strange, 1264. By statute 10 George III., ch. 18, to steal a dog was made subject to- penal punishment by fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of the justices; and for the second offence, in addition, the dog-stealer was to be whipped.
The foregoing extracts from the ancient books — without noticing the more modern authorities — are sufficiently explicit, and show that the law upon the point of the master's property in a dog is well settled.
Judgment affirmed.