## Facts

- Defendants were hunting wolves in the area where the incident occurred.
- They encountered plaintiff’s dog, which had a “striking resemblance to a wolf.”
- Defendants intentionally shot and killed the animal, believing in good faith that it was a wolf.
- Plaintiff, the dog’s owner, sued to recover the dog’s value as property.
- A jury in the County Court of Morgan County returned a verdict for plaintiff and awarded $50 in damages.

## Issues

1. Whether a good-faith mistake of fact (mistaking a dog for a wolf) is a defense to liability when defendants intentionally performed the act that destroyed another’s property.
2. Whether defendants’ intent to kill the animal they saw is sufficient for liability even if they were mistaken about the animal’s identity.
3. Whether the appellate court should disturb a jury verdict awarding the dog’s value when the defendants’ only asserted justification is their good-faith mistake.

## Decision

- The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed the $50 judgment for the plaintiff.
- The court held defendants were liable for damages caused by their mistake even though they acted in good faith.
- The court found no material trial error prejudicing defendants and saw no basis to interfere with the jury’s conclusion.

## Legal Principles

- A good-faith mistake of fact generally does not excuse liability where the defendant intentionally commits the physical act that constitutes an intentional interference with another’s property.
- Intent focuses on the defendant’s purpose to perform the act causing the invasion or destruction, not on the accuracy of the defendant’s belief about collateral facts such as the victim’s identity.
- When a defendant intentionally destroys property that belongs to another, the proper measure of damages is the property’s value, notwithstanding the defendant’s mistaken belief that the property was something else.

## Conclusion

The court treated the killing as an intentional destruction of another’s property rather than an accident and affirmed liability for the dog’s value because defendants intentionally shot the animal and their good-faith mistake about its identity did not defeat responsibility for the resulting harm.


Ranson v. Kitner, 31 Ill. App. 241 (Ill. App. Ct. 1889)