ITOTICE ; ACTION : P4RTIES ; PLEADING. 631 



brought in any county through which the railroad passes.^*^ 

 A common-law action may be maintained in one State for the 

 killing of an animal in another State ;8''' and where the stat- 

 utes of two States give similar remedies, an action may be 

 maintained in either State. ^** 



The repeal of a provision in a company's charter requiring 

 the owner of stock killed by the negligence of the company 

 to sue for damages within six months does not impair the 

 obligation of the charter.^*® 



Where animals were killed at different times, this consti- 

 tutes different causes of action, and such causes cannot be 

 united to give jvirisdictional value. ^^° Where animals were 

 killed at the same time, this constitutes but one cause of 

 action. ^^^ And where a cow and a heifer standing a few feet 

 apart were killed by a passing train, the objectioii that they 

 were not killed at the same time was held untenable, as the 

 difference in time was inappreciable. ^^^ 



Plaintiffs must be joint owners of stock in order to sue 

 jointly: otherwise, they cannot recover. ^^^ Where the 

 statute enables an owner or special owner to sue, the hirer of 

 stock who agrees to return them in good condition may sue 

 without making the owner a party.^^* And a custodian 

 under such an arrangement as to be accountable for an animal 



'*° Toledo, W. & W. R. Co. v. Milligan, 52 Ind. 505; Detroit, E. R, & 

 111. R. Co. V. Barton, 61 id. 293. 



For cases on procedure in Justices' Courts, see i Rap. & Mack Dig. 

 Ry. Law 354-368. 



'"' St. Louis, A. & T. R. Co. v. Holden, 3 Tex. App. (Civ. Cas.) 391- 



^ Boyce v. Wabash R. Co., 63 la. 70. 



»" Louisv. & N. R. Co. V. Williams (Ky.), 45 S. W. Rep. 229. 



"" Jeffersonville, M. & L R. Co. v. Brevoort, 30 Ind. 324; Louisville, 

 N. A. & C. R. Co. V. Quade, loi id. 364. 



"' Indianap. & Cine. R. Co. v. Elliott, 20 Ind. 430; Binicker v. Hannibal 

 & St. J. R. Co., 83 Mo. 660; Pucket v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 25 

 Mo. App. 650. 



" Lafayette & I. R. Co. v. Ehman, 30 Ind. 83. 



=■'•=' St. Louis, A. & T. H. R. Co. v. Linder, 39 lU- 433- 



=" St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Biggs, 50 Ark. 169. 



