634 LIABILITY IRRESPECTIVE OF FENCING LAWS. 



nor- does the lessee take the franchise subject to liability for 

 the killing of stock before the lease.^'^^ In Iowa, where two 

 companies operate trains on one road, one as owner and the 

 other as lessee, each is liable only for the stock killed by its 

 own trains.^''* In South Carolina, a company leasing its 

 road is still liable for the killing of stock by the negligence 

 of its lessees.^'^^ In Texas, where a railroad is without 

 authority of law leased to another company, both companies 

 are liable for injuries thereon.^^'' But a company is not liable 

 for stock killed where the road and cars are in possession of 

 and managed by independent contractors in the construction 

 of the road.^^'^ 



An action cannot be brought against a company where 

 stock was run over after the company had ceased to own 

 or control the road and its franchises had passed to other 

 corporations.^'^* But in Indiana it has been held that the 

 mere appointment of a receiver does not relieve the company 

 from liability: the receiver operates the road subject to that 

 liability.*^* In Texas, however, it has been held that a com- 

 pany is not liable for the killing of an animal on its track 

 where the road was at the time being operated by a receiver, 

 unless its property has been since returned to it Avithout 

 sale.^*" In Missouri, a trustee under a mortgage in posses- 

 sion of and operating the road has been held liable.^*^ The 



™ Pittsburg, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Kain, 35 Ind. 291. 



'"Stephens v. Davenport & St. P. R. Co., 36 la. 327; Clary v. la. Mid- 

 land R. Co., 37 id. 344. 



See Liddle v. Keokuk, Mt. P. & M. R. Co., 23 la. 378, distinguished in 

 Stewart v. Chic. & N. R. Co., 27 id. 282. 



"= Harmon v. Columbia & G. R. Co., 28 S. C. 401. 



"" Internat. & G. N. R. Co. v. Dunham, 68 Tex. 231. 



"' Houston & G. N. R. Co. v. Van Bayless, i Tex. App. (Civ. Cas.) 247. 



"'Western R. Co. 7'. Huse, 70 Ala. 565; Same v. Davis, 66 id. 578. 



='" Ohio & Miss. R. Co. v. Fitch, 20 Ind. 498; McKinney v. Ohio & M. 

 R. Co., 22 id. 99; Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Cauble, 46 id. 277. 



'" Dayhoff v. Internat. & G. N. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S W Rep.. 

 517. 



™ Farrell v. Un. Trust Co., 77 Mo. 475. 



