
    [No. 9683.
    Department One.
    November 11, 1911.]
    Umna Halm, by his Guardian etc., Respondent, v. John Madison et al., Appellants.
      
    
    Animals — Dogs—Viciousness — Evidence — Sufficiency — Joint Ownership — Knowledge — Husband and Wife — Notice to Wife. There is sufficient evidence of the vicious propensities of a dog and notice thereof to sustain a verdict against a husband and wife, as a community, for personal injuries inflicted upon a child, where it appears that it bit the child, that it had previously bitten two other children, and was cross when teased, and the wife had been warned as to its vicious propensities and told of its biting another child; notice to one joint owner being notice to all the owners (Gose, J., dissenting in part).
    Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Chehalis county, Irwin, J., entered March 4, 1911, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action for personal injuries received from the bite of a dog.
    Affirmed.
    
      W. H. Abel, for appellants.
    
      J. C. Cross (A. Emerson Cross, of counsel), for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 118 Pae. 755.
    
   Fullerton, J.

— The respondent, a minor, brought this action against the appellants to recover for injuries received from the bite of a dog, owned and lcept by the appellants. He recovered in the court below, on a trial had before the court sitting without a jury, and this appeal followed.

The only error assigned is that the findings and judgment of the court are contrary to the weight of the evidence. It is contended that the evidence did not justify the findings of the court to the effect that the dog was vicious, and that the defendants knew of its vicious propensities. But as we read the record, the evidence clearly supports these findings. It is not questioned that the dog bit the respondent, and there was evidence tending to show that it had bitten another child shortly before that time, and had bitten a boy who came to one of the neighboring houses to deliver meat, and the appellants’ daughter testified that he was cross when teased. As to the appellants’ knowledge, it was shown that one of the appellants had been warned of the dog’s vicious propensities, and had been told of its biting another child. It may be that she did not believe the statements; in fact, she testified that the dog was at another place when it was claimed it had bitten the first child, but this does not- alter the legal aspects of the case. The notice was sufficient to put her upon inquiry, and notice to one joint owner is notice to all of the owners.

We think the evidence sustains the judgment, and it will therefore stand affirmed.

Dunbar, C. J., Mount, and Parker, JJ. concur.

Gose, J.

(dissenting) — The husband and wife have not heretofore been regarded as joint owners of the community property in this state. I do not think that community property is held by such a tenure, nor do I think that the knowledge of the wife of the vicious propensities of a domestic animal can be imputed to the husband. She is in no sense his servant or agent. He is the manager and has the untrammeled right of disposal of the community personal property. I therefore think that the judgment against the husband was erroneous, and that it should be reversed as to him.  