^90 ANIMALS TRESPASSING AND RUNNING AT LARGE. 



A lessee of land whose crops are injured by stock escaping 

 thereon through a defective fence along a railway track is en- 

 titled to the beneficial provision of a statute requiring the 

 •company to fence its right of way."^ So, the bailee of an 

 animal may recover for an injury done to it by a trespassing 

 animal.^ ^^ And a tenant in common whose property has 

 Tjeen injured by a trespassing animal may bring an action 

 without joining his co-tenants.^'^'* But the owner of prop- 

 erty is bound to take ordinary care to prevent the injury.^''^ 



One having the right to the use of a dam on another's land 

 for the purpose of conveying water to his mill and to enter 

 to repair and protect the dam, cannot recover for damages 

 caused thereto by the cattle of the land-owner who may use 

 the water for his stock, it not appearing that the dam might 

 not have been protected by the plaintiff or so constructed as 

 not to be liable to injury by cattle.^^® 



77. When Animals are "Running at Large"; Pasturing in the 

 Highway — Where the owners or keepers of animals are made 

 by statute liable for the consequences of permitting them to 

 ■"run at large," the meaning of this expression has been a 

 frequent subject of consideration in the courts.^^'' In a Ver- 

 tnont case it is said : "Running at large is used in the statute 

 in the sense of strolling without restraint or confinement ; as 

 wandering, roving or rambling at will, unrestrained. Per- 

 haps no precise abstract rule under the statute can be laid 

 down, applicable to every case, as to the nature, character and 

 amount of restraint necessary to be exercised over a domestic 

 animal when suffered, as in this case, to be on the highway 

 incident to its use. But the restraint need not be entirely 

 physical; it may depend upon the training, habits and in- 



'" Langkop v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 55 Mo. App. 611. 

 "° Mason v. Morgan, 24 U. C. Q. B. 328. 



"* Morgan v. Hudnell, 52 O. St. SSZ. ™ Little v. McGuire, 38 la. 560. 

 '"Keller v. Fink (Cal.), 37 Pac. Rep. 411. 



"' See, also, on the subject of animals running at large, § 134, infra, and 

 Title III, Ch. I, supra. 



