242 N.W. 774 | Mich. | 1932
1 Comp. Laws 1929, § 5263, provides in part:
"Any dog that enters any field or enclosure, outside of an incorporated city, unaccompanied by his owner or his owner's agent, shall constitute a private nuisance and the owner or tenant of such field or other enclosure, or his agent or servant, may kill such dog while it is in the field or other enclosure without liability for such killing."
Defendant shot and killed plaintiff's dog under precisely the circumstances set forth in the statute. Plaintiff brought suit. Defendant prevailed. Plaintiff has appealed, presenting the question that the statute offends the due process clause of the State Constitution, section 16, article 2.
There is property in dogs (Ten Hopen v. Walker,
"It is practically impossible by statute to distinguish between the different breeds, or between the valuable and the worthless, such legislation as has been enacted upon the subject, though nominally including the whole canine race, is really directed against the latter class, and is based upon the theory that the owner of a really valuable dog will feel sufficient interest in him to comply with any reasonable regulation designed to distinguish him from the common herd."Sentell v. Railroad Co., supra.
And from 3 C. J. p. 18:
"Whether the property in dogs is regarded as qualified or absolute, they are subject to the police *419 power of the State, and may be destroyed or otherwise dealt with, as in the judgment of the legislature is necessary for the protection of its citizens."
No other question requires discussion.
Affirmed.
McDONALD, POTTER, SHARPE, NORTH, FEAD, WIEST, and BUTZEL, JJ., concurred.