OWNERSHIP OF ANIMALS 233 



tion than other domestic animals. ^^ Then it was 

 said that it is not necessaiy that a dog have real 

 pecuniary value in order to render him subject to 

 ownership.^ ^ Gradually it came to be recognized 

 that a dog is personal property with a value.^-"^ 

 Today the character of the dog as property is 

 acknowledged by statutes and practice. 



Under the old idea, to the effect that a dog was 

 only property while being kept strictly according 

 to the law, it was nevertheless held, that a pro- 

 vision in a statute that any person may kill a dog 

 found without a collar does not make the lack of a 

 collar such evidence that the dog has no owner as 

 will authorize a person to convert such dog to his 

 own use.^® 



Though dogs are only qualified property they 

 are recognized as property in so far as that the 

 owner may be held liable for injuries inflicted. A 

 knowledge of previous bitings is sufficient to re- 

 quire of the owner that he take special care; ^'^ and 

 if there be any suspicion that the animal may 

 have hydrophobia he should take particular care 

 to prevent bitings.^ ^ If it be shown that the owner 

 has not exercised due care under the circum- 

 stances, he will be held in civil damages for the 



13 Maclin 's Case, 3 Leigh, Mich. 283, 22 Am. S. Eep. 529 ; 



809; Woolf V. Chalker, 31 Nehr v. State, 35 Neb. 638, 53 



Conn. 121, 81 Am. Dee. 175; N. W. 589, 17 L. E. A. 771. 

 Davis V. Commonwealth, 17 lo Cummings v. Perham, 42 



Grat. 617; Cole v. Hall, 103 Mass. 555. 

 111. 30. IT Mayer v. Kloepfer, 69 Atl. 



11 Parker v. Mise, 27 Ala. 182. 

 480, 62 Am. Dec. 776. is Buck v. Brady, 110 Md. 



15 Anson v. Dwight, 18 Iowa 568, 73 Atl. 277. 

 241; Heisrodt v. Hnckett, .34 



