590 LIABILITY IRRESPECTIVE OF FENCING LAWS. 



be taken where they would not be of the shghtest use.®* It 

 has been held, however, that a company using the plaintiff's 

 land, even with his consent, is bound not to injure his cattle 

 and that it is immaterial that the company was not bound 

 to fence or could- not have avoided striking the animal after it 

 was seen.** 



Ordinary care to avoid the injury is, as a rule, all that is 

 required.*^ But it is harmless error to charge that the en- 

 gineer must use the "utmost care" where it is evident that no 

 care at all was exercised.®^ Where negligence could be im- 

 puted from the act of either the engineer or the fireman 



R. Co. V. Caldwell, 83 id. 196; St. Louis & S. F, R. Co. v. Basham, 47 

 Ark. 321; Little Rock & Fort S. R. Co. v. Turner, 41 id. 161; Same v. 

 Holland, 40 id. 336; Higgins v. Wilmington City R. Co., i Marv. (Del.) 

 352; Savannah, F. & W. R. Co. v. Rice, 23 Fla. 575; Ga., M. & G. R. Co. 

 V. Harris, 83 Ga. 393; Ga. R. & Bkg. Co. v. Wilhoit, 78 id. 714; Same v. 

 Wall, So id. 202; Western & Atl. R. Co. v. Trimmier, 84 id. 112; Moye v. 

 WrightsviUe & T. R. Co., 83 id. 669; Savannah, F. & W. R. Co. v. Gray. 

 77 id- 440; Louisville, N. O. & T. R. Co. v. Tate, 70 Miss. 348; Yazoo & 

 M. V. R. Co. V. Smith, 68 id. 359; Louisville, N. O. & T. R. Co. v. Smith, 

 67 id. 15; New Orleans & N. R. Co. v. Burkett (Miss.), 2 South. Rep. 

 253; Seawell v. Raleigh & A. R. Co., 106 N. C. 272; Joyner v. So. Car. R. 

 Co., 26 S. C. 49; Lynch v. North. Pac. R. Co., 84 Wis. 348; McFie v. 

 Can. Pac. R. Co., 2 Ma. 6; Falconer i'. European & N. A. R. Co., 1 Pug. 

 (N. B.) 179. 



"Savannah & W. R. Co. v. Jarvis, 95 Ala. 149; Nashville, C. & St. L. 

 R. Co. V. Hembree, 85 id. 481 ; Flattes v. Chic, R. L & P. R. Co., 35 la. 

 191; Cleaveland v. Chic. & N. R. Co., Ibid. 220; E. Tenn., Va. & Ga. R. 

 Co. V. Scales, 2 Lea (Tenn.) 688, (refusing to follow the dictum in Nash- 

 ville & Chat. R. Co. V. Thomas, S Heisk. (Tenn.) 262) ; Hawker r. Bait. 

 & O. R. Co., 15 W. Va. 628. 



" Matthews v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 18 Minn. 434. 



"" Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Buice, 88 Ga. 180; Savannah, F. & W. R. 

 Co. V. Wideman, 99 id. 245; Little Rock and Fort S. R. Co. v. Henson, 

 39 Ark. 413; Miss. Cent. R. Co. v. Miller, 40 Miss. 45; Mobile & O. R. 

 Co. V. Malone, 46 Ala. 391; Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. Wilson, 28 Kan. 637; 

 Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Norris, 60 111. App. 112; Chic, M. & St. P. 

 R. Co. V. Phillips, 14 id. 265; Washington v. Bait. & O. R. Co., 17 W. Va. 

 190; Molair v. Port Royal & A. R. Co., 29 S. C. 152; Baker v. Chic, B. 

 & Q. R. Co., 73 la. 389: Atwood v. Bangor, O. & O. T. R. Co., 91 Me. 

 399; Beattyville & C. G. R. Co. v. Maloney (Ky.), 49 S. W. Rep. 545. 



™ St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. V. O'Loughlin, 49 Fed. Rep. 440. 



