#### Mary Drimmel by Anton Drimmel, Defendant in Error, v. Rudolph Jahrling and Mrs. Rudolph Jahrling, Plaintiffs in Error.

Gen. No. 19,540.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John Courtney, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.

Reversed with finding of fact.

Opinion filed May 25, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Mary Drimmel, a minor, by Anton Drimmel, her father and next friend, against Rudolph Jahrling and Mrs. Rudolph Jahrling to recover damages for personal injuries claimed to have been caused by a bite of a dog belonging to defendants. The case was *245tried by the court who found for the plaintiff. To reverse the judgment, defendants bring error.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Animals, § 12 * —when recovery against joint defendants for dog hite erroneous. In an action against husband and wife as owners of a dog to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff by being bitten by the dog, held that a judgment against both defendants was erroneous for the reason that it was erroneous as to one, there being no evidence tending to show that the wife owned the dog or was in anyway responsible for its conduct.

2. Animals, § 14*—when recovery for hite of dog not sustained hy the evidence. In an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by a child by being bitten by a dog belonging to defendants, a judgment for plaintiff held not warranted by the evidence, there being no direct evidence that plaintiff was bitten by the dog and no proof that the dog was vicious or prone to bite mankind.

Henry Roth, for plaintiffs in error,

Emery M. Shaw, for defendant in error.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.