630 LIABILITY IRRESPECTIVE OF FENCING LAWS. 



a letter notifying the company of the kiUing- of the stock 

 and another letter stating the amount of damages claimed 

 are sufificient statutory notice; ^^^ that a claim of payment is 

 a sufficient demand for payment; **i that the commencement 

 of an action within a given time amounts to a presentation 

 of the claim; ^*2 that service of notice on a station-agent 

 is sufificient.^*^ The posting of a notice by the company of 

 the killing of stock, as required by statute, may be in any 

 public place at the station and proof that notice was not 

 posted at the usual places makes out a prima facie case for the 

 plaintiff.^** 



Trespass does not lie against a company for the destruc- 

 tion of animals, unless done by its direction or with its 

 assent; the conductor, engineer or subordinate agent who 

 has charge of the train at the time of the accident is not, 

 for this purpose, the representative of the corporation. The 

 proper remedy is case.**^ 



An action against a company on its common-law liability 

 for negligently killing an animal is transitory and may be 



=" Jacksonville, T. & K. W. R. Co. v. Harris, 33 Fla. 217. 



The demand is not made void by being for too large a sum: Mo. Pac. 

 R. Co. V. Abney, 30 Kan. 41. 



=" Ft. Scott, W. & W. R. Co. V. Holman, 45 Kan. 167. 



'" South & North Ala. R. Co. v. Bees, 82 Ala. 340. See Wood & G. 

 Mfg. Co. V. Whitcorab (Wis.), TJ N. W. Rep. 175. 



°" Smith V. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 60 la. 512; Schlengener v. Same, 

 61 id. 235. 



And see, in general. 111. Cent. R. Co. v. Tilman, 98 Tenn. 573; Ala. Gr. 

 South. R. Co. V. Killian, 69 Ala. 277; Same v. Roebuck, 76 id. 277; South 

 & North Ala. R. Co. v. Brown, 53 id. 651; Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Malone, 

 46 id. 391; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Kinman, 49 Kan. 627; Mo. Pac. 

 R. Co. V. Gill, Ibid. 441; Un. Trust Co. v. Kendall, 20 id. 515; Cent. 

 Branch R. Co. v. Ingram, Ibid. 66; Keyser v. Kan. City, St. J. & C. B. 

 R. Co., 56 la. 440; Mendell v. Chic. & N. R. Co., 20 id. 9. 



"* St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. V. Wright, 57 Ark. 327. 



'*= Selma, R. & D. R. Co. v. Webb, 49 Ala. 240; 'Price v. N. J. R. & T. 

 , Co., 31 N. J. L. 229; Sharrod v. London & N. W. R. Co., 4 Exch. 580. 



See State v. Judge, 33 La. Ann. 954. 



