260 ANIMALS TRESPASSING AND RUNNING AT LARGE. 



tensive prairies can be fenced, and their luxuriant growth 

 sufficient for thousands of cattle must be suffered to rot and 

 decay where it grows, unless the settlers upon their borders 

 are permitted to turn their cattle upon them. . . . The uni- 

 versal understanding of all classes of the community upon 

 which they have acted by enclosing their crops and letting 

 their cattle run at large, is entitled to no little consideration 

 in determining what the law is, and we should feel inclined 

 to hold, independent of any statutes upon the subject, on ac- 

 count of the inapplicability of the common-law rule to the 

 condition and circumstances of ovir people, that it does not 

 and never has prevailed in lUinois." ° 



In this case the cattle entered the plaintiff's enclosure from 

 the highway, but in a later case where they entered through 

 the space left by the removal of an inside fence it was held 

 that the plaintiff could recover.^ "The latter decision limits 

 and qualifies the first to stock running at large in the high- 

 ways and commons, and leaves the common law in force as 

 to inside fences, unless regulated by the statute regarding par- 

 tition fences." '^ 



And now under the statute imposing a penalty on one per- 

 mitting domestic animals to run at large, except where au- 

 thorized by a vote, owners must keep their animals from tres- 

 passing or be liable for the results. The common-law rule 

 has been entirely restored, except so far as the statute regu- 

 lating partition fences is concerned.* 



In Indiana the common-law rule is in force, where no order 

 has been made by county commissioners allowing animals to 

 run at large ;^ and this without reference to the quality of 



" Seeley v. Peters, s Gilni. (111.) 130. " Buckmaster v. Cool, 12 111. 74. 



' McCormick v. Tate, 20 111. 334. And see McBride v. Lynd, 55 id. 411; 

 Birket v. Williams, 30 III. App. 451. 



' Bulpit V. Matthews, 145 111. 345; D'Arcy v. Miller, 86 id. 102; Selover 

 V. Osgood, 52 111. App. 260; McPherson v. James, 6g id. 337. 



"Atkinson v. Mott, 102 Ind. 431; Welch v. Bowen, 103 id. 252; In- 

 dianapolis & Cine. R. Co. V. Caldwell, 9 id. 397; Same v. McClure. 26 id. 

 370. 



