UNLICENSED AND DANGEROUS ANIMALS. 143 



wearing collars, the city was held not liable.^^* So, where the 

 police officer while killing the dogs injured the plaintiff, the 

 city was held not liable for his negligence.^ ^® 



Where, under an ordinance, the owner of a dog was ordered 

 by the mayor to bring it to his office to have it killed and the 

 dog was brought, but the killing was prevented by the order 

 of a competent court, and the mayor thereupon sentenced the 

 owner to imprisonment, the sentence was held to be null and 

 the mayor's action arbitrary and oppressive.^^** And where 

 the mayor directs a marshal to post notices requiring the 

 owners of dogs to muzzle them and directing that all dogs 

 running at large without muzzles shall be killed, but no ordi- 

 nance of the city has been passed authorizing such a regula- 

 tion, the marshal has no authority to kill dogs.^*^ 



A statute authorizing the killing by any one of an unli- 

 censed dog contemplates the exercise of some judgment and 

 does not extend to the case of killing by another animal. 

 Hence where an unlicensed dog was killed by the defendant's 

 dog, the fact of the want of a license was held to be no de- 

 fence ; and it was said that, if by accident a dog's collar is lost, 

 the owner must be allowed a reasonable time to discover the 

 fact and replace the collar.^*^ 



A statute authorizing an officer or agent of a society for the 

 prevention of cruelty to animals to condemn, appraise and kill 

 an animal, without notice to the owner, is unconstitutional 

 and void as depriving such owner of his property without due 

 process of law.^*^ 



'"' Moss V. Augusta, 93 Ga. 797. 



"' Culver V. Streator, 130 111. 238. And see Whitfield v. Paris, 84 Tex. 

 431- 



The same rule applies where the officer is trying to impound the ani- 

 mal that injures the plaintiff: Givens v. Paris, s Tex. Civ. App. 705. 



''° State V. Vay, 40 La. Ann. 209. 



"' Stebbins v. Mayor, 38 Kan. 573. 



""- Heisrodt v. Hackett, 34 Mich. 283. 



"" King V. Hayes, 80 Me. 206; Loesch v. Koehler, 144 Ind. 278. See 

 § 124, infra. 



