296 ANIMALS TRESPASSING AND RUNNING AT LARGE. 



that roam and feed at will and are not under the immediate 

 direction and control of any one. They may be in an en- 

 closure which may restrain the limits in which they shall 

 wander and feed, or they may be on an unfenced range, rela- 

 tively without limit, where they may roam and feed at will; 

 but in either case they are not subject to the direction and 

 control of any one." ^^'^ 



Where the owner of a farm and a bull by arrangement with 

 the occupant of an adjoining farm allows stock to run across 

 to the other farm to graze and both farms are enclosed, such 

 bull is not "running at large." ^^* So, where A. consents that 

 B. shall turn his swine into his own fields which are not 

 fenced from A.'s, the latter cannot take them up as "running 

 at large." ^^^ But where animals are turned loose on prem- 

 ises not enclosed so as to confine ordinary cattle, the fence 

 having openings through which they pass to the land of an- 

 other, they are running at large.^*"* 



A horse which becomes frightened and escapes from its 

 owner is not "running at large." ^"^ In Oklahoma, it has 

 been held that the statutes providing for damage done on cul- 

 tivated lands by stock running at large do not apply to cases 

 of injury by one domestic animal to another.^"^ But a statute 

 prohibiting the owner of an animal from letting it run at large 

 imposes only the duty of using reasonable care to prevent 



j^ 203 



With regard to pasturing animals in the highway, the rule 

 seems to be that this is not one of the uses of the highway to 

 which the pubhc is entitled, but that the owner of land ad- 

 joining a highway, owning, as is usually the case, the soil to 

 the centre thereof, may let his cattle graze there under the 



'" Keeney v. Oreg. R. & Nav. Co., 19 Oreg. 291. 



"' Mo. Pac. R. Co. V. Shumaker, 46 Kan. 769. 



"' Martin v. Reed, 10 Pa. Co. Ct. 614. 



~ Osborne v. Kimball, 41 Kan. 187. 



'" Presnall v. Raley (Tex. Civ. App.), 27 S. W. Rep. 200. 



'"" Meegan v. McKay, i Okla. 59. 



™ Marietta & Cine. R. Co. v. Stephenson, 24 O. St. 48. 



