## Facts

- William L. Holcomb owned turkeys kept as domestic farm stock.
- Holcomb alleged that Henry Van Zylen owned a dog that attacked and injured or killed Holcomb’s turkeys.
- Holcomb sought civil damages under a Michigan dog-damage statute, § 5593 of the Compiled Laws of 1897.
- The statute provided a cause of action when a dog killed or injured “sheep, lambs, swine, cattle, or other domestic animal.”
- Van Zylen contended the statute did not cover turkeys because turkeys are poultry (birds) rather than “animals” as contemplated by the statute.
- The case presented a pure question of statutory interpretation on the pleadings; the allegations were treated as true for purposes of review.

## Issues

1. Whether domesticated turkeys are included within the phrase “other domestic animal” in § 5593, such that a dog owner may be liable for a dog’s attack on turkeys.
2. Whether the trial court properly overruled a demurrer arguing that a declaration seeking statutory damages for injury to turkeys fails to state a cause of action.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Michigan affirmed the trial court’s order overruling the demurrer.
- The court held that turkeys fall within the statutory category of “other domestic animal.”
- Because turkeys are covered by the statute, the plaintiff’s declaration stated a valid cause of action and could proceed on the merits.
- The court rejected the defendant’s proposed narrow reading that would limit “animal” to certain traditional livestock and exclude domestic fowl.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory terms are generally construed according to ordinary meaning unless the legislature clearly indicates a technical usage; in common speech, a turkey is an animal and, when kept on a farm, a domestic animal.
- A general residual phrase following specific enumerations (here, “or other domestic animal”) may be read broadly where the text and context show an intent to protect a broader class than the listed examples.
- Remedial legislation designed to protect owners from losses caused by dogs is construed to effect its protective purpose and to avoid arbitrary gaps in coverage.
- On a demurrer challenging the legal sufficiency of a pleading, courts assume the pleaded facts are true and decide only whether the facts, if proved, fall within the statute.

## Conclusion

Michigan’s high court concluded that domesticated turkeys qualify as “other domestic animal[s]” under the dog-damage statute, so a plaintiff alleging a dog’s injury to turkeys states a statutory claim and is not barred at the pleading stage by a narrow species-based interpretation of “animal.”


Holcomb v. Van Zylen, 140 N.W. 521 (Mich. 1913)