THE COMMON-LAW RULE RESTRAINING ANIMALS. 265 



or animals belonging to others, but each is required to pre- 

 vent his own animals from entering upon the close of the 

 other." " 



In Wisconsin the same rule has been held to be the law, 

 "though it is generally disregarded by common consent in 

 the newly settled parts of the State." ** 



71. Abrogation of the Common-Law Rule The reasons why 



the common-law rule is less suited to the needs of a newly 

 settled country have been admirably stated in the opinions 

 in Seeley v. Peters^* and Buford v. Houtz.*" We, accord- 

 ingly, find that in many of the States, especially the Western 

 and Southern ones, it has been declared not to be in force or 

 has been abrogated by statute, and that the land-owner is 

 there obliged, not to fence in his own cattle, but to fence out 

 those of others, and is not entitled to recover in trespass un- 

 less he can show that he has fulfilled his duty with reference 

 to fencing. As in the preceding section, the States will be 

 considered approximately in their alphabetical order. 



In Alabama the common-law rule is not in force, except 

 where by local statutes boundary lines are declared lawful 

 fences rendering the owner of cattle liable for trespasses in 

 passing over them.*^ Nor is the rule in force in Arkansas** 

 or California, except in certain counties of the latter State. *^ 



In Colorado the common-law rule does not hold as against 

 the trespasses of cattle,** but the same custom was held not 

 to apply to the case of sheep. "The owner of cattle in this 



" Hurd V. Rutland & B. R. Co., 25 Vt. 116. 



" McCall V. Chamberlain, 13 Wis. 637. 



" S Gilm. (111.) 130, cited supra, q. v. " 133 U. S. 320, cited infra, q. v. 



"Joiner v. Winston, 68 Ala. 129; Wilhite v. Speakman, 79 id. 400; 

 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Williams, 53 id. 595; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 

 Cochran, 105 id. 354. 



" Little Rock & F. S. R. Co. v. Finley, 37 Ark. 562. 



"Merritt v. Hill, 104 Cal. 184; Waters v. Moss, 12 id. 535; Logan v. 

 Gedney, 38 id. 579, where it was held that the laws restricting herding 

 are not meant to prohibit free ranging at large. 



" Morris v. Fraker, 5 Colo. 425; Nuckolls v. Gaut, 12 id. 361. 



