DIVISION FENCES. 271 



where the maintenance of a fence has been mutually waived 

 by the parties.''^ But a joint maintenance for a long time 

 will not give rise to a prescriptive obligation by either to main- 

 tain a particular portionJ^ Where it is impossible to erect a 

 partition fence owing to the fact that the lands of the parties 

 are separated by a non-navigable river, each is liable, as at 

 common law, for the trespasses of his cattle.'^* 



One who removes a partition fence must give due notice 

 to the other party.''^ He is then remitted to his common- 

 law liability for the trespass of his cattleJ* Otherwise where 

 the fence is on his own landJ'^ And where the plaintiff has 

 had a reasonable time to build a proper fence, he cannot re- 

 cover.''^ So, where the plaintiff had removed a part of the 

 fence erected by the defendant under a claim of right, it was 

 held that after a reasonable time had elapsed for the defend- 

 ant to rebuild, there was no license for the entry of the latter's 

 cattle and he was liable for their trespass J* Where the plain- 

 tiff removed his portion of the fence and notified the defend- 

 ant to remove his cattle, which the latter did not do, and the 

 defendant afterwards removed his own part of the fence, he 

 was held liable for the trespass of his cattle.®" Where the 

 plaintiff sued for damages to his crop by cattle in consequence 

 of the defendant's removal of the division fence, the crop 

 having been sown after the removal, it was held that he could 

 not recover by reason of his negligence.®^ And where the 



"Myers v. Dodd, 9 Ind. 290; Winters v. Jacobs, 29 la. 115; Milligan 

 V. Wehinger, 68 Pa. St. 235. 



™ Webber v. Closson, 35 Me. 26. 



" Bissel V. Southworth, i Root (Conn.) 269. 



" McCormick v. Tate, 20 111. 334- 



'° Holladay v. Marsh, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 142. 



" Whalon v. Blackburn, 14 Wis. 432. 



'" Smith V. Johnson, 76 Pa. St. 191. 



Recovery should be limited to entries occurring before such time: 

 Watkins v. Rist, 67 Vt. 284. 



" Sturtevant v. Merrill, 33 Me. 62. 



" Van Slyck v. Snell, 6 Lans. (N. Y.) 299. 



" Hassa v. Junger, 15 Wis. 598. 



