Baker v. Howard County Hunt

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiffs sued defendant, to enjoin them and their dogs from hunting on the property or otherwise interfering with the peaceful possession of the property.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A property owner is entitled to an injunction to prevent repeated trespasses.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

The law is well settled that an injunction will not issue to restrain a trespass simply as such, but it will be granted where the injury alleged is irreparable, or where full and adequate relief cannot be had at law or where the trespass is of a character to work destruction of the property as it had been held and enjoyed or where it is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of litigation.

View Full Point of Law

Facts.

Plaintiff Dr. Laurence H. Baker owned a farm with his wife. Defendant Howard County Hunt an association that hunted foxes occupied a farm near plaintiff. Defendant’s dogs attacked and bit plaintiff’s wife. The dogs subsequently trampled plaintiff’s crops, broke frames, and disturbed his animals. Plaintiffs sued defendant, to enjoin them and their dogs from hunting on the property or otherwise interfering with the peaceful possession of the property. The trial court dismissed the case. Plaintiff appealed.

Issue.

Whether a property owner is entitled to an injunction to prevent repeated trespasses.

Held.

Yes. The trial court erred in refusing to grant the injunction, and the judgment is reversed.

Discussion.

In this case, defendant had a duty to control his dogs after noticing that the dogs were hunting on plaintiff’s farm and were causing damage. Plaintiff’s shooting of the dogs does not deny him relief. There is no adequate way to measure damages for these injuries so the only equitable relief is to enjoin defendant from continuing to trespass.

Create New Group