Volume 63 — Sickels

This action was brought upon a bond executed by defendant Mooney as principal and the other defendants as sureties. The plaintiff by written contract undertook to employ one Mooney as its agent for the term of five years, to solicit applications and collect premiums for insurance within certain territory in the state of Mew York, and defined his duties in regard thereto, and his commissions.

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made at the September Term, 1885, which affirmed a judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered upon a verdict.</p> <p>The complaint stated that the defendant unlawfully kept a dog, well knowing him to be of a ferocious, mischievous and vicious disposition, and accustomed to attack and bite mankind; that on the 'Tth of December, 1883, the dog wrongfully came upon the plaintiff’s premises and there attacked and wounded him. The answer was, first, a general denial; second, that the plaintiff committed a wanton and malicious assault upon the dog; and whatever the dog did to the plaintiff was by way of and in his own defense. After evidence on both sides, the defendant moved for a nonsuit upon the ground that there was “ no evidence that the defendant owned the dog, or was in any way responsible for what the dog might have done; no evidence that the dog was vicious; and that there is evidence that the injury the plaintiff sustained was brought about by his own act, interfering on another person’s premises in matters he was not requested to interfere in.” The motion was denied, and after a charge, to which no exception was taken, the jury gave a verdict to the plaintiff.</p>