
    BUEHLER v. KERR (two cases).
    (No. 7791.)
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    October 29, 1915.)
    Animals <§=>70—Personal Injuries—Does.
    Where the owner of a dog did not know or believe, or have reason to know or believe, that the animal was vicious or dangerous to mankind, was not negligent in allowing it to run at large, and violated no ordinance in doing so, he was not liable for personal injuries inflicted by such dog.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Animals, Cent. Dig. §§ 225, 228-237; Dec. Dig. <§=>70. ]
    Appeal from. Appellate Term, First Department. Actions by Ella Buehler and Frederick Buehler against John Kerr. Judgments for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
    See, also, 153 N. Y. Supp. 1108.
    Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, FAUGHLIN, SCOTT, and DOWLING, JJ.
    John C. Stein, of New York City, for appellant.
    Domeniclc A. Montan!, of New York City, for respondents.
   PFR CURIAM.

The determinations of the Appellate Term and the judgments of the Municipal Court are reversed, with costs, and the complaints dismissed, with costs, upon the ground that the defendant did not know or believe, or have reason to know or believe, that the dog was vicious or dangerous to mankind, and that there is no proof that the defendant was negligent in permitting the dog to run at large, or that any ordinance was violated.

Settle orders on notice.  