Hull v. Scruggs - 191 Miss. 66, 2 So. 2d 543 (1941)

Rule:

Where plaintiff's dog had for a period of three weeks sucked all the eggs laid by fowls on defendant's premises, and defendant had made reasonable effort without success to drive dog away, to confine dog and to ascertain and notify owner, defendant was entitled to kill dog and was not liable to plaintiff for so doing.

Facts:

The dog owner brought an action against the property owner to recover for the killing of his dog. On what amounted in practical effect to peremptory instructions for the dog owner, the jury returned a verdict in his favor, and the property owner appealed. 

Issue:

Was the property owner entitled to kill the dog?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

Upon review, the court reversed the judgment and entered judgment in favor of the property owner. The dog at issue had acquired the habit of egg-sucking and there was no available way by which he could be broken of it. The court held that the premises and its privileges belonged to the property owner, and not to the dog. The property owner tried to use reasonable efforts to drive the dog away, endeavored to catch and confine the dog, and made reasonable efforts to ascertain and notify the dog owner so that the latter could have the opportunity to take the necessary precautions by which to stop the depredations. He was unsuccessful in his efforts, and the court held that the property owner was left with no other alternative than to kill the animal. Furthermore, the court held that the property owner was not required to wait and watch with a gun until he could catch the dog in the act.