GKNEKAL LIABILITY FOE FAILURE TO FENCIS. 659 



But one who pastures his stock on another's land 

 is not chargeable with the land-owner's failure to complain of 

 the insecurity of the fence.*'^ Where the fence as originally 

 built was defective, no evidence of knowledge by the defend- 

 ant is necessary.*® 



The duty of keeping fences in repair is not shifted to the 

 owner of stock because the latter, owing to the company's 

 neglect, found it necessary to make temporary repairs.*^ 

 Where a company had maintained a fence for years near its 

 station grounds and had given no notice that it would not be 

 kept up, it was held estopped from exonerating itself.** A 

 company negligently burning a pasture fence is liable for the 

 stock that escape.*" Where the company ran its trains on 

 Sunday, it could not claim exemption from the labor of re- 

 pairing its fence on that day.^" 



If animals get through a fence by breaches made by stran- 

 gers, the company is not liable in the absence of negligence.^' 

 Otherwise, where a gap is made in a fence by persons furnish- 

 ing supplies to the company.^^ But where a gap was used by 



" Chic, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Seirer, 60 111. 295. 



But, under the Ohio statute, it was held that where a horse was injured 

 ty a defective fence of which the owner knew and the company did not, 

 the latter could not escape responsibility by showing that it had no notice 

 of the actual condition of the fence: Pittsb., Cine. & St. L. R. Co. v. 

 Smith, 38 O. St. 410. 



" Mo. Pac. R. Co. V. Pfrang (Kan. App.), Si Pac. Rep. 911. 



" Morrison v. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co., 84 la. 66.3; Duncan v. 

 St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 91 Mo. 67; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. 

 Rowland (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S. W. Rep. 421- 



" Peoria, D. & E. R. Co. v. Babbs, 23 111. App. 454; Jeffersonville, M. 

 & I. R. Co. V. Sullivan, 38 Ind. 262. See Chic, B. &. Q. R. Co. v. Seirer, 

 •60 111. 295. 



"Chic & E. I. R. Co. V. Guertin, iiS 111. 466. 



" St. Louis, A. & T. R. Co. v. McKinsey, 78 Tex. 298. 



" Toledo, W. & W. R. Co. v. Cohen, 44 Ind. 444- 



" Case V. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 75 Mo. 668; Walthers v. Mo. Pac 

 R. Co., 78 id. 617; Toledo & W. R. Co. v. Fowler, 22 Ind. 316; Chic 

 & N. R. Co. V. Barrie, 55 111. 226; Perry v. Dubuque S. R. Co., 36 la. 102. 



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



