6S0 LIABILITY IRRESPECTIVE OF FENCING LAWS. 



constitutional as an attempt to grant special advantages to 

 one class of litigants at the expense of another.'*®^ And a 

 statute providing for a board to assess damages in stock cases 

 and for taxing an attorney's fee, if either party refuses to 

 abide by the assessment, was held unconstitutional, as the 

 legislature had no right to substitute the board for the court 

 without consent nor to tax the fee as a penalty in such a 

 case.*®* Attorney's fees are not recoverable where the loss 

 is chargeable to common-law negligence, but only in a statu- 

 tory action.*®® 



Statutes making the company absolutely liable in dam- 

 ages without regard to negligence on its part are unconsti- 

 tutional.^'®® So, also, are statutes that order the value of the 

 animals to be fixed by appraisement or by an arbitrary 

 schedule without regard to the right of the parties to trial 

 by jui-}' or to the actual value. ^®i It is otherwise where the 

 appraisement is made only prima facie evidence of the value of 

 the animals.'®* A statute making the killing of cattle by a 



Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 515 n, where the weight of authority is said to be 

 in favor of the constitutionality of such statutes. 



'" South & North Ala. R. Co. v. Morris, 65 Ala. 193; Wilder v. Chic. 

 & W. M. R. Co., 70 Mich. 382; Lafiferty v. Same, 71 id. 35 ; Jolliffe v. 

 Brown, 14 Wash. 155. 



"* St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. V. Williams, 49 Ark. 492. 



'"Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co. V. Phillips, 14 III. App. 265; Wabash, St. 

 L. & P. R. Co. V. Neikirk, 13 id. 387. 



And they are not recoverable when a judgment against the plaintiff 

 is reversed, unless he recovers at the subsequent trial: Rabberraann v. 

 Pierce, 77 111. App. 405. 



"^ Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Wheatley, 7 Colo. App. 284; Cateril v. 

 Un. Pac. R. Co., 2 Ida. 539; Bielenberg v. Mont. Un. R. Co., 8 Mont. 

 271; Oregon R. & N. Co. v. Smalley, i Wash. 206; Jensen v. Un. Pac. 

 R. Co., 6 Utah 253. 



"' St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. V. Williams, supra; Rio Grande Western 

 R. Co. V. Vaughn, 3 Colo. App. 465; Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Outcalt,^ 

 2 id. 395; Un. Pac. R. Co. v. Bullis, 6 id. 64; Denver & R. G. R. Co. 

 V. Thompson (Colo. App.), 54 Pac. Rep. 402; Graves v. North. Pac. R. 

 Co., 5 Mont. 536; Dacres v. Oregon R. & N. Co., 1 Wash. 525. 



"" III. Cent. R. Co. v. Crider, 91 Tenn. 489. 



