412 VICIOUS AND FEROCIOUS ANIMALS. 



on the property and carrying on her own business there. . . . 

 The mere permission to bring a bear upon one's premises is 

 not per se a wrongful act ; the wrong is occasioned by the neg- 

 lect of the owner or keeper of the animal safely to keep it, 

 so that it may not do harm. That appears to be a wrong for 

 which the owner or keeper of the animal alone is responsible, 

 and not the person who merely passively permits him to use 

 his land on which to keep it." ^^® 



The defendant is the "owner and keeper" of a dog though 

 it is kept at a house owned by him as member of a firm. 

 Where the liability is on either the owner or the keeper and 

 the defendant is declared as both, that must be proved.^^" A 

 statute making the "owner" or "keeper" of a dog Hable does 

 not create a joint or several liability, and one who fails to col- 

 lect a judgment against one cannot bring an action against 

 the other.^^^ But, as a rule, all who take part in harboring a 

 dog may be sued jointly. ^'^^ 



Liability for the acts of another depends on whether the 

 other person is acting within the scope of his authority, actual 

 or apparent. The owner of a dog is therefore not liable for 

 the wilful act of his servant or child in setting it on another's 

 cattle.^^* And if he keeps the dog properly secured and 

 another lets it loose and urges it to mischief, the former is not 

 liable. ^^* But where a groom touched a horse with a spur and 

 it kicked the plaintiff, it was held that the act of using the spur 

 so near the plaintiff made his master responsible for the in- 

 jyj-y 1T6 ^^^ ^jjg owner of a vicious horse which kicked a 



"=•26 Can. L. Jour. 421. "° Grant v. Ricker, 74 Me. 487. 



™ Galvin v. Parker, 154 Mass. 346. "' Hayes v. Smith, 8 O. C. D. 92. 



'" Steele v. Smith, 3 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 321 ; Tifft v. Tifft, 4 Denio 

 (N. Y.) I7S. 



See, also, Macdonald v. Lye, 4 Sc. L. Rev. (Sher. Ct. Rep.) 376; Oracle 

 V. Hedderwick, 5 Sc. L. Mag. 75, cited in § 93, supra. 



"* Fleeming v. Orr, 2 Macq. H. L. Cas. (Sc.) 14, where proof that A.'s 

 dog killed B.'s sheep was held not sufficient, as another might have let 

 him loose. 



"° North V. Smith, 10 C. B. N. S. 572. 



