668 LIABILITY UNDliK THK STATUTES. 



In all these cases one lawfully occupying the adjoining land 

 as tenant or under a license is as fully protected as the owner 

 would be.^** 



140. Crossings; Gates. — It is a general rule that railway com- 

 panies are not required to fence their tracks at highway cross- 

 ings which the public convenience demands should remain 

 unobstructed for purposes of traffic. ^^ Tliis rule applies 

 to highways de facto and de jure;''-'"' and to all parts of the 

 road, not merely to that part in actual use by the public.-"'^ 

 It has been held also that where a railway is located on part 

 of a highway, the remainder of which is still used as such, the 

 company is not bound to fence its right of way.^"- But where 

 there is a travelled road rimning parallel to the line of rail- 



'■" See Veerhusen v. Chic. & N. R. Co., 53 Wis. 689; French v. Western 

 N. Y. & P. R. Co., 72 Hun (N. Y.) 469; Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. Pfrang 

 (Kan, App.), 51 Pac. Rep. 911; McCoy v. South. Pac. Co. (Cal.), 26 

 Pac. Rep. 629. 



" Mobile & O. R.Co. -.'. Moore, 34 III. App. 519; Lafayette & I. R. Co. 

 V. Shriner, 6 Ind. 141; McPheeters v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 45 

 Mo. 22. 



A company constructing an insufficient crossing is Hable, though the 

 fright of the animal contributed to the injury: Hanson v. Chic, St. P. 

 & K, C. R. Co., 94 la. 409. 



'°° Luckie v. Chic. & A. R. Co., 76 i\Io. 639; Brown v. Kansas City, 

 St. J. & C. B. R. Co., 20 Mo, App. 427; Carter v. Kansas City, Ft. S. & 

 M, R. Co., 69 id. 295; Soward v. Chic. & N. R. Co., 33 la. 387; Long 

 V. Cent. la. R. Co., 64 id. 657; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Grififis, 

 28 Kan. 539; Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. Kocher, 46 id. 272. 



But not to an abandoned canal intersecting the track: White Water 

 Valley R. Co. v. Quick, 30 Ind. 384, 31 id. 127. 



"' Ehret v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co., 20 Mo. App. 251. 



The fence should extend to the cattle-guard at the crossing: Jefiferson- 

 Tille, M. & I. R. Co, V. Avery, 31 Ind. 277. 



"^ Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Francis, 58 Ind. 389; Coy v. Utica & 

 S. R. Co., 23 Barb. (N. Y.) 643. 



But see Sarver v. Chic, B. & Q. R. Co., 104 la. S9. 



In Missouri the company is not excused from fencing its track under 

 such circumstances: it is not the right of way which the law requires to 

 be fenced, but the "road": Emmcrson v. St. Louis & H. R. Co., 35 Mo. 

 App. 621. 



