Livermore v. Batchelder
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Granier v. Chagnon (Mont. 1949)
- State v. Sylvester (Vt. 1941)
- Johnston v. Wilson (Ga. Ct. App. 1924)
- State v. Churchill (Idaho 1909)
- McChesney v. Wilson (Mich. 1903)
- Duenow v. Lindeman (Minn. 1947)
- Nesbett v. Wilbur (Mass. 1900)
- Chapman v. Decrow (Me. 1899)
- Harris v. Eaton (R.I. 1897)
- Gillum v. Sisson (Mo. Ct. App. 1893)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The ruling of the court, as we understand it, meant that the facts found, without more, did not disclose a justification for killing the plaintiff’s dog. It was found that the defendant had reasonable cause to believe that the dog was proceeding to maim and kill his hens, but not that he had reasonable cause to believe that it was necessary to kill the dog in order to prevent him from killing the hens. The justification, therefore, was not made out. Wright v. Ramscot, 1 Saund. 84. Janson v. Brown, 1 Camp. 41. See Commonwealth v. Woodward, 102 Mass. 155, 161.
It is unnecessary to consider whether the common law remedy is taken away by the Pub. Sts. c. 102, §§ 80-110.
Exceptions overruled.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.