LAW OF THE FARM. 289 



while the cow was in the act of calving, so that the cow and calf both died, it 

 was held that the owner of the cow and calf could not recover, because there 

 was no evidence that the owner of the sow and pigs knew or had reason to 

 believe that they were accustomed to such or similar mischief. 



I now recur to the first lawsuit in which I was ever employed as attorney. 

 A farmer's dog had killed three of his neighbor's sheep, and an action was 

 brought to recover the value of the sheep. I was employed after the suit was 

 commenced by the owner of the sheep to prosecute the suit against the owner 

 of the dog. I proved beyond all question that the dog had killed the sheep, 

 and that the sheep were worth thirty-eight dollars, but I could not prove that 

 the dog had ever before been known to kill sheep. I was not able to prove 

 even that the dog had ever shown any vicious propensity whatever. Indeed, 

 it appeared in evidence that the dog was an amiable dog, valuable to his master 

 on the farm, and that this was his first offense. The owner of the dog was 

 not, therefore, liable, and the neighbor lost three valuable sheep, and was, 

 moreover, compelled to pay the costs of the suit. This case was decided in 

 accordance with common law, which I have been considering. The rule of 

 the common law is very ancient, and has been applied in like cases in this 

 country ever since farmers have kept dogs and sheep ; but in some states it has 

 been abrogated by statutory enactments. Indeed, much that I may say respec- 

 ting the rules of the common law will not apply when the statute of the State 

 intervenes. 



In 1850 the legislature of Michigan enacted a law which provided that if 

 any dog shall have killed, or assisted in killing, wounding, or worrying any 

 sheep, lamb, swine, cattle, or other domestic animal, or that shall assault or 

 bite or injure any person while traveling the highway or out of the enclosure 

 of the owner or keeper of such dog, such owner or keeper shall be liable to 

 the owner of such property or person injured in double the amount of damages 

 sustained, to be recovered in an action of trespass on the case; and it shall not 

 be necessary, in order to sustain an action, to prove that the owner or keeper 

 knew that such dog was accustomed to do such damage or mischief. Thus by 

 a single dash of the pen the Legislature set aside the old law so far as dogs are 

 concerned, so that the farmer is responsible in Michigan for damage done by 

 his dog whether he had previous knowledge of his vicious propensity or not. 



It will be observed that I have been speaking of injuries done by domestic 

 animals while running at large, where no law prohibits, to other animals or 

 persons, and not to that damage which they sometimes do crops by reason of 

 their well known propensity to rove in search of food, and by reason of tres- 

 passes on the lands of others than their owners. 



LECTUKE NUMBER THREE. 



In the early history of the common law, it was laid down as a general rule 

 that if a person brought on his premises and collected and used for his own 

 purpose anything which was likely to do mischief if it escaped, he kept it at 

 his peril, and he y^as prima facie liable for all damages which were the natural 

 consequences of its escape. 



The person whose grass or corn was eaten down by the escaping cattle of his 



37 



