262 ANIMALS TRESPASSING AND RUNNING AT LARGE. 



land.-'^ The rule is likewise in force in Massachusetts^^ and 

 Maryland.^^ 



In Michigan it has been held that the common law has not 

 been changed, as there is no statute requiring individuals to 

 fence their lands; nevertheless the statute does preclude re- 

 covery for damage by beasts unless the plaintiff's land was 

 fenced.^^ In Minnesota and New Jersey the common-law 

 rule is in force, except so far as division fences are con- 

 cerned.^^ So, in New York, where there is no town regula- 

 tion as to fences or animals running at large.^" In New 

 Hampshire the owner's liability was held to extend to a case 

 where his cow, of which he had general control, was turned 

 out of its pasture by a stranger and driven in the direction of 

 the plaintiff's close and, being left, strayed upon it.^^ And 

 the common-law rule holds in North Dakota.^^ 



In Ohio the common-law rule was formerly not in force.-* 

 It has, however, been restored by statute. "Prior to the 

 passage of this act, the owner of domestic animals not breachy 

 or unruly had the right in this State to allow them to run at 

 large. ... By the statute in question a new policy is intro- 

 duced in the State in regard to the restraint of the classes of 

 domestic animals named in the statute. The object of the 



"Webber v. Closson, 35 Me. 26; Lord v. Wormwood, 29 id. 282; Little 

 V. Lathrop, 5 Greenl. (Me.) 356; Sturtevant v. Merrill, 33 Me. 62; Knox 

 V. Tucker, 48 id. 373. 



'"Thayer v. Arnold, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 589. 



" Bait. & O. R. Co. V. Lamborn, 12 Md. 257. 



" Williams v. Mich. Cent. R. Co., 2 Mich. 259. 



"Locke V. St. Paul & Pac. R. Co., 15 Minn. 350; Coxe v. Robbins, 9 

 N. J. L. 384; Chambers v. Matthews, 18 id. 368; Vandegrift v. Rediker, 

 22 id. 185. 



'"Wells V. Howell, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 385; Stafford v. Ingersol, 3 Hill 

 (N. Y.) 38; Angell v. Hill, 18 N. Y. Suppt. 824; Tonawanda R. Co. v. 

 Munger, 5 Den. (N. Y.) 255. 



'^ Noyes v. Colby, 30 N. H. 143. 



"' Bostwick V. Minneapolis & P. R. Co., 2 N. D. 440. 



" Kerwhacker v. C, C. & C. R. Co., 3 O. St. 172; Cleveland, C. & C. R. 

 Co. V. Elliott, 4 id. 474. And see Marietta & Cine. R. Co. v. Stephenson, 

 24 id. 48. 



