656 LIABILITY UNDKIK THK HTATUTES. 



when run over by it.^" But the company may sometimes 

 escape HabiUty by showing that a lawful fence would not have 

 kept off the animals in question.^" The fence should be suflfl- 

 cient to turn not merely ordinary stock, but stock even to 

 some extent unruly ; ^^ though the propensities of exception- 

 ally unruly or breachy beasts need not be guarded against.^^ 

 Where hogs are not permitted to run at large, it has been 

 held that the company is under no obligation to fence against 

 them.^* But where the statute inflicts a penalty for a failure 

 to fence against "horses, cattle, mules or other animals," hogs 

 are included.^* And the word "cattle" in the English statute 

 has been held to include pigs.^'^ "Cattle" has been also held 

 to include horses,^^ mules,^^ and asses.** "Stock" has been 

 held not to include dogs.*" 



It is not necessary that the fence should be so high as never 

 to be covered with snow : snow-drifts are not to be considered 

 defects in the fence.^** A fence upon one side only of the road 

 is not sufficient. ^^ But it has been held that a company is not 



" Indianapolis, P. & C. R. Co. v. Marshal!, 27 Ind. 300. And see Hal- 

 verson v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 32 Minn. 88. 



'° Mo. Pac. R. Co. V. Baxter, 45 Kan. 520; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 

 V. Yates, 21 id. 613. 



"■ Chic. & Alton R. Co. v. Utley, 38 111. 410; Pittsb., C. & St. L. R. Co. 

 71. Howard, 40 O. St. 6. 



The company is liable where a frightened horse runs against and breaks 

 through a raihng approaching a bridge, which should have been kept in 

 repair: Titcomb v. Fitchburg R. Co., 12 Allen (Mass.) 254. 



" Leggett V. III. Cent. R. Co., 72 III. App. 577; Wabash R. Co. v. Ferris, 

 6 Ind. App. 30. 



^ Kansas City, Ft. S. & G. R. Co. v. McHenry, 24 Kan. 501 ; Atchison, 

 T. & S. F. R. Co. V. Yates, 21 id. 613. 



-' Henderson v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 81 Mo. 605. 



'' Child V. Hearn, L. R. 9 Ex. 176. 



'" McAIpine v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 38 U. C. Q. B. 446. 



" Toledo, W. & W. R. Co. v. Cole, 50 111. 184. 



'"' Ohio & Miss. R. Co. V. Brubaker, 47 111. 462. 



'" Tex. & Pac. R. Co. v. Scott, 4 Tex. App. (Civ. Cas.) 476. 



'" Patten v. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 75 la. 459. 



" Tredway v. S, C. & St. P. R Co., 43 la. 527. 



