Case Name: HEUER v. MOLIA
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-02-25
Citations: 68 N.Y.S. 835
Docket Number: 
Parties: HEUER v. MOLLA.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 68
Pages: 835–836

Head Matter:
HEUER v. MOLLA.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
February 25, 1901.)
Animals—Runaway House—Viciousness—Vebdict Sustained Where Evidence Conflicts.
In an action to recover damages caused by defendant’s runaway horse breaking plaintiff's plate-glass show window, and destroying the goods therein, a verdict for the plaintiff will be sustained where the evidence was conflicting as to the vicious propensity of the horse to run away, and the owner’s knowledge thereof.
Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Tenth district.
Action by William Heuer against Louis Molia for damages to plaintiff’s property caused by defendant’s horse running away. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before ANDREWS, P. J., and O’GORMAN and BLANCHARD, J J..
Olcott & Messiter (Hubert F. Breitweiser'and J. Van Vechten 01-cott, of counsel), for appellant.
Babe & Keller, for respondent.

Opinion:
BLANCHARD, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the municipal court of the city of New York in favor of the respondent against the appellant for the sum of $489.17. The action was brought to recover damages for the destruction of respondent's property caused by the running away of a horse owned by the appellant, and coming into collision with a show window in appellee's store, breaking the plate glass thereof, and destroying goods displayed therein. It is conceded that a runaway occurred, and that respondent Suffered damage thereby. The only other questions involved in the appeal are the amount of damage done, the vicious propensity of the horse to run away, and the owner's knowledge of it. These questions were all sharply contested, and the record shows that both sides presented testimony concerning each of them. The evidence on the part of the respondent is amply sufficient to support the judgment, and it must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.