LIABILITY OF OWNER OE KEEPER. 413 



colt at a fair was held not to be relieved from liability by the 

 fact that his servant had, without his knowledge or consent, 

 temporarily placed the animal in charge of a third person.^''* 

 A joint owner of a ram is chargeable with damage done by it 

 by butting while in the co-owner's pasture, though the latter 

 in the former's absence and without his advice, put it in the 

 pasture without trying to restrain it, — the former having 

 given no directions as to restraining the animal and not 

 having been consulted as to keeping it;^^'' nor can he enforce 

 a claim for contribution against the co-owner unless there has 

 been an undertaking to indemnify.^''* Where a person pass- 

 ing between a carriage and a team of horses on opposite sides 

 of a street is kicked by the team against the carriage and in- 

 jured, he cannot recover jointly against persons who without 

 concert placed the obstructions there.^'^" 



The rule of liability where animals of several owners commit 

 a trespass together has already been stated,^^* and applies to 

 other kinds of injury as well. In the absence of statutory pro- 

 visions to the contrary, a joint action will not lie against the 

 owners of animals doing mischief.^®^ "When the dogs of 

 several persons do mischief together, each owner is only liable 

 for the mischief done by his own dog ; and it would be repug- 

 nant to the plainest principles of justice to say that the dogs 

 of different persons, by joining in doing mischief, could make 



"' Campbell v. Trimble, 75 Tex. 270. 



"' Oakes v. Spaulding, 40 Vt. 347. 



"' Spaulding v. Oakes, 42 Vt. 343- 



"» Bard v. Yohn, 26 Pa. St. 482. '"" See § ^(>, supra. 



"'Adams v. Hall, 2 Vt. 9; Van Steenburgh v. Tobias, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 

 562; Denny v. Correll, 9 Ind. 72; Dyer v. Hutchins, 87 Tenn. 198; Nieren- 

 berg V. Wood, 59 N. J. L. 112. 



And see Flansburg v. Basin, 3 111. App. 531, where it is said: "It is not 

 necessary to consider whether there can be joint liability of owners for 

 a joint attack of their dogs; as it is not so with cattle, it is probably not 

 so with dogs." 



See, however, Smith v. Hurll, i Sc. L. Rev. (Sher. Ct. Rep.) 246, where 

 a different rule is stated. 



