ANIMALS RUNNING AT LARGE, ETC. 617 



of reasonable care on the part of the owner, he is not guilty of 

 contributory negligence. ^*^ 



In Oregon, it has been held that the owner cannot let 

 stock roam wherever their instincts incline them, though 

 he may depasture them on the "common unfenced 

 range." ^*^ And the negligence of a herder who leaves sheep 

 at night between a river and a railway track beyond which 

 is their pasture prevents recovery for their loss.^** But 

 the plaintiff's negligence in driving loose a herd of eleven 

 horses that had never before seen an engine will not prevent 

 recovery, if there was gross negligence on the part of the 

 company's employees. ^^^ Where the owner is not bound 

 to keep his stock in an enclosure, he is not guilty of con- 

 tributory negligence in letting them run at large.^*® 



In Pennsylvania, an owner of cattle suffered to go at large 

 and killed on a railway track, without wantonness or such 

 gross negligence as amounts to it, has no recourse to the 

 company or its servants; ^*^ and this is also the case where 

 they have escaped from a properly fenced enclosure without 

 his knowledge. ^*^ 



In South Carolina it has been held that the owner of a 

 horse running at large is not guilty of contributory negli- 

 gence.^*^ But, since the passage of the stock law, as was said 

 before, less care is required of the company than formerly.^^** 



'" Marietta & Cine. R. Co. v. Stephenson, 24 O. St. 48. And see the 

 comments in Sloan v. Hubbard, 34 id. 583. See, also, Cranston v. Cine, 

 H. & D. R. Co., I Handy (O.) 193; Pittsburgh, Ft. W. & C. R. Co. v. 

 Methven, 21 O. St. 586. 



'*" Hindman v. Oreg. R. & Nav. Co., 17 Oreg. 614. 



''** Keeney v. Oreg. R. & Nav. Co., ig Oreg. 291. 



'" Holstine v. Oreg. & Cal. R. Co., 8 Oreg. 163. 



'" Moses V. So. Pac. R. Co., 18 Oreg. 385. As to whether the common- 

 law rule as to restraining animals is in force in Oregon, see § 70, supra. 



"' N. Y. & E. R. Co. V. Skinner, 19 Pa. St. 298. 



'" North Pa. R. Co. v. Rehman, 49 Pa. St. loi. 



"' Murray v. So. Car. R. Co., 10 Rich. L. (S. C.) 227. 



"°° See Joyner v. So. Car. R. Co., 26 S. C. 49, and cases cited in § 132, 

 supra. 



