I am of opinion that the rule still obtains in this jurisdiction that notice, either actual or constructive, to the owner that the dog was vicious is essential to warrant a recovery against the owner for an attack upon a human being by the dog, and that there is no evidence of such notice prior to the time the dogs attacked the decedent; and I, therefore, vote for reversal and a new trial.
Merrell, J., concurred.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.