
    Dyer v. Hutchins.
    (Nashville.
    January 5, 1889.)
    Actions. Joinder of defendants.
    
    Where dogs belonging to different owners unite in depredations upon a flock of sheep, the owner of the sheep cannot maintain a joint action against the owners of the dogs for the damage done, but must sue each separately for the damage done by his own dog.
    Act construed: Acts 1859-60, Ch. 45.
    (Code, g 2192 (M. & V.) ; § lOSic (T. & S.).
    FROM DEKALB.
    Appeal in error from Circuit Court of DeKalb County. M. D. SmallmaN, J.
    W. C. Dyer sued J. C. Hutchins and J. S. Hutchins jointly, before a Justice of the Peace, for damage done to his sheep by their dogs. He recovered before the Justice and in the‘Circuit Court. Defendants appealed, and assigned as error that a joint action could not be maintained.
    The evidence shows that defendants did not own the dogs- jointly that committed the depredations upon plaintiff's sheep, but that J. S. Hutch-ins owned one dog and J. C. Hutchins two, and that the three dogs joined in chasing plaintiff’s sheep, and would have caught them if they had not been stopped. The plaintiff says his sheep have become “wild and foolish” in consequence- of this rude treatment, and that eight of them have gone astray, and will not return to the fold. He states that two of his flock “came home with a little of their tails off'.” Ho other damage was shown.
    Webb & Avant for Dyer.
    T. W. Wade for Hutchins.
   Turney, C. J.

The Act of 1859-60, Chapter 45, Section 1, is: “ Where any dog or dogs shall kill, or in any manner damage, any sheep in this State, the owner of such dog shall be liable, upon an action for damages, to the owner of such sheep for the worth of such sheep, if killed, or for the amount of injury or damage committed upon the same by such dog.”

In this case the injury was done by two dogs belonging to different persons, who were sued jointly.

There is nothing in the statute making the wrong the joint wrong of the respective owners. Each is responsible only for the act of his own animal, and must be- sued separately therefor.

The judgment must be reversed, and the suit dismissed.  