ANIMALS RUNNING AT LARGE, ETC. 613 



fence according to statute, the question of contributory neg- 

 ligence does not arise. ^^'^ 



In Minnesota, the mere fact that the animals killed were 

 allowed unlawfully to run at large does not necessarily show 

 contributory negligence,^^® nor excuse the company for the 

 result of its failure to fence. ^^® Contributory negligence 

 exempts the company where the owner's act proximately 

 affects the question of the exposure of the animals or con- 

 tributes to the accident; ^^^ as where he deliberately allows 

 them to run at large unlawfully near unfenced tracks. ^^' 

 But where a colt escaped from its owner's premises without 

 his fault, ran upon a railway crossing within town limits and 

 was injured through the company's neghgence, it was held 

 not to be wrongfully on the highway as against the com- 

 pany.^^^ 



In Mississippi, the fact than an animal was trespassing on 

 the track, being at large in a stock-law district, does not 

 preclude the owner from recovering for its being negligently 

 killed.^^^ The company is required under such circum- 

 stances to exercise ordinary, not the utmost, care, and the 

 owner assumes some of the risks of exposure.^^* The 

 owner may pasture his animals in the commons of incor- 

 porated towns where this is lawful and, though such con- 

 duct may be dangerous and reprehensible, it does not di- 



""' Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. Cameron, 45 Mich. 451. 



=" Green v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., 55 Minn. 192, 60 id. 134. 



'" Ericson v. Duluth & I. R. Co., 57 Minn. 26; Watier v. Chic, St. P., 

 M. & O. R. Co., 31 id. 91. 



'™ Watier v. Chic, St. P., M. & O. R. Co., supra. 



"^ Moser v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 42 Minn. 480; Locke v. St. Paul & 

 Pac. R. Co., IS id. 350. 



='" Hohl V. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 61 Minn. 321. 



'''^ Roberds v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 74 Miss. 334- 



=^''Cantrell v. Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co., 69 Miss. 43S; Memphis 

 & C. R. Co. V. Blakeney, 43 id. 218; New Orleans, J. & G. N. R. Co. v. 

 Field, 46 id. 573. 



See Raiford v. Miss. Cent. R. Co., 43 id. 233. 



