LEGAL DEPARTMENT. 581 



Where a horse is driven a greater distance than that for which it was 

 hired, the owner may ratify the wrongful act by accepting compensa- 

 tion for the e-xtra distance traveled. 



In relation to injuries of persons or property by domestic animals, 

 the following propositions are sustained by the courts of most of the 

 States: 



The owners of domestic animals are generally not liable for the 

 injuries they may do to property or persons of others, so long as they 

 are rightfully in the place where it is alleged that the injury or mischief 

 was done, unless it be shown that the particular animal doing the injury 

 was vicious and was accustomed to do, or had an inclination to do the 

 mischief complained of, and that these facts were known to the owner 

 of the animal before the injury occurred. It is not absolutely necessary 

 to prove actual or positive knowledge on the part of the owner in or- 

 der to establish liability, but if the owner has seen or heard facts relating 

 to the viciousness of the animal which would ordinarily satisfy a man 

 of prudence and caution, that the animal v/as liable to do mischief of 

 the character complained of, it would place him under obligation to 

 secure the animal in such a manner as to prevent the injury, and he 

 would be liable if he did not so secure it. 



The rule is different with reference to vicious, wild animals which 

 have been tamed, such as lions, tigers, and the like, for he who keeps 

 them is liable without notice on the ground that such animals are 

 fierce and dangerous by nature. 



The owner or keeper of animals viciously disposed or of mischievous 

 habits, of which the owner had previous actual or implied notice, is 

 bound at his peril to keep them at all times, and in all cases, properly 

 secured, and is responsible to anyone who, without fault on his part, is 

 injured by them. (105 Mass. 71; 106 Mass. 381; 65 N. Y. 54.) 



At common law the rule is that every man is bound to keep his ani- 

 mals within his inclosure at his peril, and that he is liable in damages if 

 he fails to do so, and they escape to the property of others and do 

 injury, whether such property be fenced or not; unless the trespass is 

 committed upon property through defects in fences, which the owner 

 of such property is bound to maintain. 



Every unauthorized entry by animals upon the land of another is a 

 trespass, whether the land be enclosed or not. 



If domestic animals are wrongfully in the place where they do mis- 

 chief the owner is liable, though he had no notice that they were accus- 



