-*"' LEGAL DEPARTMENT. 589 



Where several animals belonging to several owners unite in doing 

 mischief, the owners cannot be legally joined in a single action for the 

 mischief, because each owner is liable for the acts of his own animal, 

 and not for injuries caused by the animals of others. (Van Steenburgh 

 V. Tobias, 17 Wendell, 562.) 



Chief Justice Swift, in the case of Russell v. Thompson, 2 Conn. 

 206, states the rule to be: " Where two dogs belonging to different 

 owners made a raid upon a flock of sheep, the owners are responsible 

 tor the mischief done by their dogs, but no man is liable for the mis- 

 chief done by the dog of another, unless he had some agency in caus- 

 ing the dog to do it. When the dogs of several persons do mischief, 

 each person is only liable for the mischief done by his own dog, and it 

 would be repugnant to the plainest principles of justice to say that 

 dogs of different owners, by joining in doing mischief, could make the 

 owners jointly liable. This would be giving them a power of agency 

 which no animal was ever supposed to possess." 



Under the statutes of some of the States, the several owners of dogs 

 which unite in doing injury are jointly liable for the injury done. 



In Pennsylvania each owner is answerable for the whole damage done 

 in which his dog is jointly engaged. (Kerr v. O'Connor, 63 Pa. St. 341.) 



In New York the owner is responsible for the injury done by his own 

 dog. (See Auchmuty v. Ham, i Denio, 485.) So, where cows belong- 

 ing to several owners are found in a garden of an individual, commit- 

 ting a trespass, each owner is liable for the damage done by his own 

 cow, and for no more. (Partenheimer v. Van Orden, 20 Barb. 479-) 



And in the absence of all proof as to the amount of damage done by 

 each cow, the law will infer that the cattle did equal damage. (Id.) 



WARRANTY OF THE SOUNDNESS OF ANIMALS. 



What constitutes soundness. 



Local custom and usage, as well as circumstances of each case, 

 determine the meaning of the word sound, when it is applied to the 

 sale and warranty of horses, sheep and cattle. 



The general rule implies the absence of any disease in the animal at 

 the time which actually decreases its value or its natural usefulness. 

 There is a great difference, however, among judges as to what consti- 

 tutes a breach of warranty of soundness, whether the disease must be 

 temporary or permanent in its nature. 



