DISEASED animals; TRANSPORTATION, ETC. 349 



is generally laid down in the cases.^"* Where, however, the 

 action was brought for the trespass on the plaintiff's land, the 

 defendant has been held chargeable with the consequent dam- 

 ages, such as communicating disease to the plaintiff's animals, 

 without regard to his knowledge of the diseased condition of 

 his own animals,^"* though this may be shown to enhance the 

 damages, even if not alleged in the declaration.^"^ 



Under an act of Congress imposing penalties on the trans- 

 portation of infected live-stock, it was held that actual knowl- 

 edge of the infection on the part of the defendant need not 

 be shown : it is sufficient that the stock come from a locality 

 known to be infected.^"® 



The contributory negligence of the plaintiff is, of course, 

 a competent defence in actions of this kind.^"^ Thus where 

 the plaintiff negligently permits his cattle to come into con- 

 tact with those of the defendant, knowing the latter to be dis- 

 eased, he cannot recover f^^ nor where he keeps diseased cat- 

 tle after he knows of the disease f°^ nor where his fence is not 

 a sufficient legal fence and the diseased animals pass through 

 it.^^** And where by the law of the State the owner of cattle 

 is not compelled to restrain them, he is not liable where they 



"Nicholls V. Hall, L. R. 8 C. P. 322; Earp v. Faulkner, 34 L. T. 

 N. S. 284; Carroll v. Elvers, I. R. 7 C. L. 226; Hawks v. Locke, 139 Mass. 

 205; Bradford v. Floyd, 80 Mo. 207; Coyle v. Conway, 35 Mo. App. 490; 

 Patee v. Adams, 37 Kan. 133; Hite v. Blandford, 45 111. 9; St. Louis, 

 I. M. & S. R. Co. V. Goolsby, 58 Ark. 401 ; Clarendon Land Inv. & Ag. 

 Co. V. McClelland, 89 Tex. 483. 



™ Lee V. Burk, 15 111. App. 651. 



But see Clarendon Land Inv. & Ag. Co. v. McClelland, supra. 



™ Barnum v. Vandusen, 16 Conn. 200. 



°™ Lynch v. Grayson, s N. M. 487, affirmed in Grayson v. Lynch, 163 

 U. S. 468. And see Croff v. Cresse, 7 Okla. 408. 



"" Patee v. Adams, 37 Kan. 133. 



'" Coyle V. Conway, 35 Mo. App. 490; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. 

 Goolsby, 58 Ark. 401. 



"™ Harris v. Hatfield, 71 111. 298. Except for the damage done before 

 he knew of it: Ibid. 



" Demetz v. Benton, 35 Mo. App. 559- 



