660 LIABILITY UNDER THE STATUTES. 



the plaintiff for his own convenience in delivering ties sold to 

 the company, the latter was held not liable.^^ And one 

 having a license from a lessee to pasture his sheep cannot re- 

 cover from the company for an injury caused by an opening 

 in the fence made by the lessee for his own accommodation, 

 unless the opening was made on an agreement by the com- 

 pany to put in a gate, which it has failed to do within a rea- 

 sonable time.®* The removal of the company's fence by the 

 defendant is not the proximate cause of the killing of the 

 cattle of a third person which strayed upon the track and the 

 company cannot recover from the defendant what it has been 

 obliged to pay for such killing.^® 



The absence of, or insufificiency of, a fence at the place 

 where the animal went upon the track is the point to be con- 

 sidered in all these cases, and not the condition of the fence at 

 the place where the injury occurred.®" The proof and pre- 

 sumption with regard to this will be considered later.®^ 



" Clark V. Chic. & W. M. R. Co., 62 Mich. 358. 



" McCoy V. South. Pac. R. Co., 94 Cal. 568. And see Best v. Ulster 

 & D. R. Co., S4 N. Y. Suppt. 305. 



■* Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Guthrie, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 432. 



'"Toledo, P. & W. R. Co. v. Darst, 51 111. 365, 52 id. 89; Great Western 

 R. Co. V. Hanks, 36 id. 281; Ind., B. & W. R. Co. v. Quick, log Ind. 295; 

 Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Goodbar, 102 id. 596; Wabash, St. L. & 

 P. R. Co. V. Tretts, 96 id. 450; Wabash R. Co. v. Forshee, 77 id. 158; 

 Jeffersonville, M. & L R. Co. v. Lyon, 72 id. 107; Louisville, N. A. & C. 

 R. Co. V. Etzler, 3 Ind. App. 562; Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. Leggett, 27 Kan. 323; 

 Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Cash, Ibid. 587; Foster v. St. Louis, I. M. & 

 S. R. Co., 90 Mo. 116; Witthouse v. Atlantic & P. R. Co., 64 id 523; 

 Henson v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 34 Mo. App. 636; Pearson v. Chic, 

 B. & K. C. R. Co., 33 id. 543; Price i'. Barnard, 70 id. 175; Miller v. 

 Wabash R. Co., 47 id. 630; Ehret v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co., 

 20 id. 251; Green v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., 60 Minn. 134; Sullivan v. 

 Oreg. R. & N. Co., 19 Oreg. 319. 



Where stock enters at a place excepted from the operation of the statute 

 and wanders along the track to a place not excepted, because of the 

 failure to erect a suitable cattle-guard, and is killed, the company is liable: 

 Chic. & E. I. R. Co. V. Blair, 75 111. App. 659. 



" See § 144, infra. 



