THE RIGHT TO IMPOUND. 313 



to drive animals to the pound, though the inspector had given 

 public notice that anyone who should do so would receive 

 payment.'® 



Animals cannot be impounded except for the causes pro- 

 vided by the statute.'^ But impounding is not a necessity: 

 it is a cumulative, and not an exclusive remedy,'* and the 

 land-owner may drive the stray cattle into the highway with- 

 out being guilty, of conversion.'® 



An ordinance forbidding the running at large of animals 

 and directing their impounding justifies the impounding of 

 animals belonging to non-residents of the town.^° An act 

 providing that the driving of live stock into a city for the pur- 

 pose of getting them impounded is a misdemeanor, that the 

 poundage of non-residents of a town where stock may be im- 

 pounded shall not be more than one-fourth of the amount 

 paid by residents, and that non-residents living more than 

 a mile from the city limits shall pay no poundage for the first 

 three times their 'stock are impounded, was held not uncon- 

 stitutional as granting exclusive privileges or as denying the 

 equal protection of the laws.^' 



" Jackson v. Morris, i Denio (N. Y.) igg. 



"Jones V. Clouser, 114 Ind. 387. 



Thus, under the Delaware statute, animals in a public road entering a 

 field cannot be impounded in the absence of negligence of their owner or 

 fiis agents, but they may be impounded where they escaped by reason of 

 his leaving open the bars of his enclosure: Spruance v. Truax, 9 Houst. 

 (Del.) 129. See, as to the place of taking, McKeen v. Converse (N. H.), 

 39 Atl. Rep. 435- 



As to the right to impound, under the Indiana statute, see McManaway 

 V. Crispen (Ind. App.), 53 N. E. Rep. 840. 



" Bonner v. De Loach, 78 Ga. 50; Walker v. Wetherbee, 65 N. H. 656. 



" Stevens v. Curtis, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 227. 



™ Rose V. Hardie, 98 N. C. 44; Folmar v. Curtis, 86 Ala. 354; Friday v. 

 Floyd, 63 111. so. 



'^^ Broadfoot v. Fayetteville, 121 N. C. 418. An act prohibiting a town 

 from charging fines and poundage where stray animals belong to non- 

 residents does not prevent the town from impounding such animals and 

 selhng them for the cost of feeding while impounded: Aydlett v. Eliza- 

 teth City, Ibid. 4. 



