ABROGATION OF THE COMMON-LAW RULE. 267 



growing section." *® Nor is it the rule in Florida,** Indian 

 Territory,'" lowa,**^ or Kentucky .'^ 



In Mississippi, though the common-law rule does not pre- 

 vail,'* a statute requiring owners to enclose stock and pro- 

 viding that trespassing animals may be sold was passed and 

 held constitutional.'* 



This rule is likewise not in force in Missouri," Montana,'* 

 Nebraska,'^ Nevada,'* North Carolina,'* Washington,®" or 

 West Virginia.^i Nor does it prevail in Texas. "It is in- 



*° Sprague v. Fremont, E. & M. V. R. Co., 6 Dak. 86. And see Wil- 

 liams V. North. Pac. R. Co., 3 id. 168, 175. 



" Savannah, F. Sz; W. R. Co. v. Geiger, 21 Fla. 669. 



=°Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. Washington, 49 Fed. Rep. 347; Eddy v. 

 Evans, 58 id. 151. 



"Alger V. Miss. & Mo. R. Co., 10 la. 268; Frazier v. Nortinus, 34 id. 

 82; Harrison v. Adamson, 76 id. 337. 



As to the contrary rule under the statute of 1870, see Little v. McGuire, 

 38 la. 560; 43 id. 447. 



"'Wills V. Walters, 5 Bush (Ky.) 351; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Sim- 

 mons, 85 Ky. 151. 



"' Vicksburg & J. R. Co. v. Patton, 31 Miss. 156; Mobile & O. R. Co. 

 V. Hudson, 50 id. 572. 



" Anderson v. Locke, 64 Miss. 283. 



"'Gorman v. Pac. R. Co., 26 Mo. 445; McPheeters v. Hannibal & St. 

 J. R. Co., 4S id. 22; Mann v. Williamson, 70 id. 661; Bradford v. Floyd, 

 80 id. 207; Fenton v. Montgomery, 19 Mo. App. 156; Stovall v. Emerson, 

 20 id. 322; Board v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 36 id. 151. 



" Smith V. Williams, 2 Mont, igs- 



" Delaney v. Errickson, 10 Neb. 492; 11 id. 533 — at least so far as the 

 uncultivated, unenclosed prairie lands are concerned. In Lorance v. 

 Hillyer (Neb.), ^^ N. W. Rep. 755, it was held that the Nebraska herd 

 law limits the common-law liability of the owner of trespassing animals 

 only in excluding damages committed on uncultivated lands. 



™ Chase v. Chase, IS Nev. 259. 



" Laws V. No. Car. R. Co., 7 Jones L. (N. C.) 468; Burgwyn v. Whit- 

 field, 81 N. C. 261; Runyan v. Patterson, 87 id. 343. See State v. Ed- 

 monds, 121 id. 679. 



"° Timm v. North. Pac. R. Co., 3 Wash. Ty. 299. But the pasturing of 

 sheep on the lands of another, whether closed or unenclosed, without his 

 consent, is unlawful by statute: Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Cunningham, 

 89 Fed. Rep. 594. 



"' Blaine v. C. & O. R. Co., 9 W. Va. 252; Layne v. O. River R. Co., 

 35 id. 438. 



