152 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 



which broke through a fence which it was his 

 duty to maintain, and infected a neighbor's sheep, 

 was held liable for damages.^*^ In another case 

 the owner of the infecting sheep pleaded * ' the act 

 of God" in that his sheep escaped during a severe 

 storm, and also that the owners of the other flock 

 permitted his sheep to mingle with their own. 

 The court nevertheless held the owner of the first 

 flock liable because it was not shown that the 

 storm was of such an unusual character that he 

 could not reasonably have anticipated it, and 

 guarded against it; and it further held that the 

 owners of the second flock were not guilty of con- 

 tributory negligence, because the fact that the 

 first flock were infected was not at first apparent.^^ 

 If the circumstances create a suspicion that a dog 

 may have hydrophobia, the owner must use spe- 

 cial care to prevent his spreading the infection, 

 and if injury results through his negligence he 

 will be held liable.^^ 



The keeping of an animal having an infections 

 disease is not per se culpable, and it will not give 

 a right of action for damages sustained in conse- 

 quence of the disease being communicated to 

 other animals unless the owner of the diseased 

 animal knew that it was diseased, and was guilty 

 of some negligence in the manner of keeping it. 

 In an action against a stockyards company for 

 death of cattle from Texas cattle fever, alleged to 

 have been communicated to them by ticks which 



eoHerriekv. Gary, 65 111. 101. 02 Buck v. Brady, 110 Md. 



61 Mesa Be Mayo Land and 568, 73 Atl. 277. 

 Live Stock Co. v. Hoyt, 24 Colo, 

 App. 279, 133 Pac. 471. 



