272 ANIMALS TRESPASSING AND RUNNING AT LARGE. 



defendant removed the division fence without committing a 

 trespass, he was held not Hable for the trespass of a stranger's 

 cattle.«2 



The tenant of a close is obliged to fence only against cattle 

 which are rightfully on the adjoining land.*^ And if the 

 fence of the first close is sufficient, he can recover for the tres- 

 pass of animals entering a second close which is insufficiently 

 fenced.^* But the rule is otherwise where the first close is 

 insufficiently fenced and the animals pass through that into 

 another close of the same owner, the fence of which is suffi- 

 cient.*^ "If A. has green acre, adjoining to his own close 

 white acre, which adjoins to B.'s close black acre which A. 

 ought to fence against : If B.'s cattle go from his black acre 

 to A.'s white acre and thence to A.'s green acre this is no tres- 

 pass, because A. did not fence his white acre against B.'s black 

 acre." *® Where the defendant's cattle enter upon the plain- 

 tiff's land through the close of a third person in which they 

 have no right to be, the defendant is liable in trespass though 

 both the fences are defective.*'^ And the owner of the inter- 

 mediate close is not liable.** In accordance with these prin- 

 ciples it was held that where defendant's beast escaped from 

 his field into A.'s field, thence into B.'s, thence into plaintifiE's, 

 where he injured a mare, the defendant was liable, though as 

 between him and A., the latter was bound to keep the fence 

 in repair, and though the fence between B.'s field and the 

 plaintiff's was insufficient. "It was negligence to turn the 

 animals into a lot insecurely fenced . . . without regard to 

 the obligations existing between the defendant and the tenant 

 of the next lot. ... As to the plaintiff, the animals while in 



'■ Richardson v. Milbuni, ii Md. 340. ^ Rust v. Low, 6 Mass. 90. 



'■■ Herold v. Meyers, 20 la. 378. »= Page v. Olcott, 13 N. H. 399. 



'" Rust V. Low, supra, citing Jenk. 4 Cent. ca. 5. 



" Bac. Abr., Trespass H.: Lord v. Wormwood, 29 Me. 282. 



■° Little V. McGuire, 43 la. 447; Gowan v. St. Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co., 

 25 Minn. 328; Lawrence v. Combs zy N. H. 331. 



Even where the breach of the fence is made by his own cattle, unless 

 occurring under his control: Durham v. Goodwin, 54 111. 469. 



