GENERAI> LIABILITY FOK FAILURE TO FENCE. 661 



A State statute making a railroad company liable for in- 

 juries resulting from a failure to erect and maintain fences and 

 cattle-guards is not unconstitutional; and the expenses of 

 keeping watch in order to guard cattle from straying on un- 

 fenced lands and of diminution in value of the adjoining land 

 by reason of the failure to fence, fall within the regulation of 

 the police power of the State.'^ Such a statute is not re- 

 pealed by a law prohibiting the pei'mitting of animals to run 

 at large. ''^ 



In so far as these provisions are for the benefit of the land- 

 owner, they may be waived by his agreement to maintain or 

 dispense with a fence, thus exonerating the company from 

 liability."'' Such a contract binds the tenant of the owner 

 knowing thereof.^^ And it has been held, where duly re- 

 corded, to run with the land and to bind tenants and grantees, 

 as such.^^ In another case it was held to bind the lessee of 

 the owner's grantee so far that he could derive no advantage 

 fr-om its breach or claim from the company a higher degree 



" Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Emmons, 149 U. S. 364. 



See, also, as to the constitutionality of such statutes. Pa. R. Co. v. 

 Riblet, 66 Pa. St. 164; 111. Cent. R. Co. v. Crider, 91 Tenn. 489; Tex. Cent. 

 R. Co. V. Childress, 64 Tex. 346. 



" Rockford, R. I. & St. L. R. Co. v. Irish, 72 111. 404; Ohio & Miss. 

 R. Co. V. Jones, 63 id. 472; Wabash R. Co. v. Perbex, 57 111. App. 62; 

 Holland v. West End N. G. R. Co., 16 Mo. App. 172. 



^ Enright v. San Francisco & S. J. R. Co., ZZ Cal. 230; Indianapolis, 

 P. & C. R. Co. V. Petty, 25 Ind. 413; Bond v. Evansville & T. H. R. 

 Co., 100 id. 301; Whittier v. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 24 Minn. 394; 

 Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Smith, 26 O. St. 124; Ells v. Pacific 

 R. Co., 48 Mo. 231; Dolan v. Newburgh, D. & C. R. Co., 120 N. Y. 

 S7i; Duffy V. N. Y. & H. R. Co., 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 496; Talmadge v. 

 Rensselaer & S. R. Co., 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 493. 



" St. Louis, V. & T. H. R. Co. v. Washburn, 97 HI- 253; Cine, H. & D. 

 R. Co. V. Waterson, 4 O. St. 424. But not where he has no notice: 

 Thomas v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 82 Mo. 538. 



" Indianapolis, P. & C. R. Co. v. Petty, supra; Duffy v. N. Y. & H. R. 

 Co., 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 496, But see Oilman v. E. & N. A. R. Co., 6b 

 Me. 235. 



