286 ANIMALS TRESPASSING AND RUNNING AT LARGE. 



not entitled to their products, cannot regain their possession 

 and they are not subject to his management or control. 

 Without therefore deciding the question as to whether or not 

 the owner would be liable in case the cattle had escaped from 

 the possession of an agistor and committed trespass, We are 

 of opinion that when the escape is from the possession of a 

 lessee of a farm and the cattle thereon, the owner is not liable 

 for the trespass." ^^^ This distinction does not however ap- 

 pear to be borne out by the cases on the subject. The sub- 

 ject of the rights and liabilities of bailees and agistors is 

 treated of in another part of this work.^^* 



A citizen of one county is not exempt from, punishment for 

 the violation of the stock laws passed by another county.^®* 



Where animals commit a trespass together each owner is 

 liable only for the trespass of his own animals, unless they 

 constitute a common herd, in which case an action may be 

 brought against all the owners jointly.-' °® There are many 

 statutory exceptions to this rule, however,^®* and the whole 

 question will be discussed more fully hereafter in treating of 

 injuries caused by vicious animals.^^^ 



In the case of a trespassing animal doing injury, it need 

 not be shown that the owner knew of its mischievous pro- 

 pensity as in other cases of vicious animals. The mere tres- 

 pass is the ground of the action and any additional damage 

 is an aggravation thereof, without any regard to scienter}^^ 



"' Atwater v. Lowe, 39 Hun (N. Y.) 150. "' See Title V, Ch. I, infra. 



"' Hawthorn v. State (Ala.), 22 South. Rep. 894. 



"" I Suth. Dams. (2d ed.) § 141 ; Ozburn v. Adams, 70 111. 291 ; Westgate 

 V. Carr, 43 id. 450; Jack v. Hudnall, 25 O. St. 255; Cogswell v. Murphy, 

 46 la. 44; Dooley v. 17,500 Head of Sheep (Cal.), 35 Pac. Rep. ion; 

 Nierenberg v. Wood, 59 N. J. L. 112; Shultz v. Quinn, 2 Lack. Leg. N. 

 (Pa.) 141. 



Where the ownership is joint the plaintiff may elect to sue all or only 

 some of the owners: Brady v. Ball, 14 Ind. 317. 



""See Kerr v. O'Connor, 63 Pa. St. 341; Rowe v. Bird, 48 Vt. 578; 

 Remele ;'. Donahue, 54 id. 555. 



'" See § 96, infra. 



'"^Gresham v. Taylor, 51 Ala. 505; Decker v. Gammon, 44 Me. 322; 



