Hull v. Scruggs

Supreme Court of Mississippi · Torts

TortsPropertyAnimalsDefense of propertydogtrespasseggsfowls

Facts

On April 4, 1940, the defendant killed a dog on his premises, and it was later learned that the dog belonged to the plaintiff. The court set aside disputed complaints about the dog's other conduct and focused on undisputed evidence that for three weeks the dog repeatedly came onto the defendant's premises and sucked all eggs laid by the defendant's turkeys and guineas, both by day and often at night, so that no eggs were left until the dog was killed. The defendant reasonably and for a sufficient time tried to drive the dog away, tried to catch and confine it, and tried to ascertain and notify the owner, but all efforts failed. The plaintiff admitted the dog was absent from his own premises at recurrent times and hours, though he disputed that the dog was constantly elsewhere.

Issue

Whether a landowner is justified in killing another person's dog that has habitually come onto the landowner's premises and destroyed all eggs laid by the landowner's fowls, after reasonable but unsuccessful efforts to drive the dog away, catch it, and notify its owner. More specifically, the question was whether the dog could be lawfully killed only while in the actual commission of the offense.

Rule

When a dog has acquired the habit of destructive depredations such as egg-sucking, has for a substantial period taken up abode on or repeatedly returned to the premises of one not its owner, and has continued to destroy the landowner's property, the landowner must first make reasonable efforts to (1) drive the dog away in a way likely to keep it away, (2) catch and confine it, and (3) ascertain and notify the owner so the owner may stop the depredations. If those reasonable efforts are made with diligence and fail, the landowner may kill the dog, and need not wait to do so only while the dog is in the actual commission of the offense.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In rural Jackson County, Mississippi, Elena Morris kept ducks and geese on her property. For nearly a month, a neighbor's dog repeatedly came onto her land during the day and at night and destroyed every egg the birds laid; Elena repeatedly chased it off, set humane traps that failed, and asked nearby residents who owned it but could not identify the owner until after she shot the dog one afternoon while it was roaming near the nesting area but not actively eating an egg.

If the dog's owner sues Elena for the value of the dog, which is the strongest argument that Elena is justified?

Explanation. The majority held that when a dog has developed a habitual pattern of destructive depredations on the landowner's premises, and the landowner has reasonably and diligently tried to drive it away, catch and confine it, and ascertain and notify the owner, yet all efforts fail, the landowner may kill the dog without waiting to catch it in the actual commission of the offense.