GENERAL LIABILITY ; NEGLIGENCE, ETC. 579 



the spike.' ^ iA'here the company converts to its own use 

 another's animal kihed by it, it may be made Hable in dam- 

 ages whether the kilHng was negligent or not.'" 



The company is liable where the animal was attracted to 

 the track by salt spilled by employees and negligently left 

 there;'" or by molasses from its cars.'' And where stock 

 was killed by eating cotton-seed scattered near the track, the 

 company must, to overcome the presumption of neghgence, 

 show that its servants had used reasonable care."* Evidence 

 that the drainage of brine from a refrigerator had attracted 

 animals for more than a year shows negligence.'^ But it 

 was held not negligence per se to leave a car, loaded with 

 hay in the afternoon, on a track over night, — the plaintiff's 

 cow having been killed while eating the hay.^" And the act 

 of an agent of a railway company, who also kept a store 

 at the station, in placing an open barrel of salt under a ware- 

 house situated beside the track and belonging to a third 

 person, though on the company's right of way, was held not 

 to be the act of the company so as to render it liable for 

 injuries to cattle attracted thereby and killed by a train.^^ 

 Nor is a company leasing lands for the purposes of a grain 

 elevator liable for killing stock that may be attracted by grain 

 dropped in loading cars from the elevator.^^ The use of salt 

 to free switches from ice, thereby attracting animals, does 



"Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. Grandfield, 58 111. App. 136. 



And see Harper v. Mo., K. & T. R. Co., 70 Mo. App. 604: Kimes 

 V. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 85 Mo. 611. 



As to an injury received by reason of the switch premises not being in 

 good condition, see Chic. & I. R. Co. v. De Baum, 2 Ind. App. 281. 



'' Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Tanner, 19 Colo. 559- 



" Crafton v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., S.5 Mo. 580. 



" Page V. No. Car. R. Co., 71 N. C. 222. 



" Little Rock & F. S. R. Co. v. Dicks, 52 Ark. 402. 



" Morrow v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 29 Mo. App. 432. 



'" Harlan v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co.. 18 Mo. App. 483- 



^ Burger v. St. Louis, K. & N. R. Co., 123 Mo. 679, reversing 52 Mo. 

 App. 119. 



" Gilliland v. Chic. & A. R. Co., 19 Mo. App. 41 1- 



