CROSSINGS ; GATES. 66!> 



way but at a sufficient distance from the track to permit of the 

 construction of a fence, the company is not excused from en- 

 closing its road with a good and lawful fence to keep off 

 animals. ^"^ 



A railway company need not erect fences where its track 

 passes through and crosses the streets of cities, towns or 

 villages,^"* even where the streets are unused.^"" But a com- 

 pany is not excused from fencing through a large block of 

 ground, not intersected with streets and alleys, simply because 

 it is within the limits of a city.^**" It has the same right to 

 fence land lying within the corporate limits of a city, but out- 

 side of streets or highways, as if the corporation did not exist, 

 unless, possibly, a municipal ordinance controls the right.'"'^ 

 And where the town exists only on paper the company is 

 liable for failure to fence. ^"^ It has been held in Missouri 

 that where, within the limits of a town, lands dedicated to 

 public use on a railway are occupied and used for farming 

 purposes, such occupancy does not make it lawful for the 

 company to fence across them.^°* 



There appears to be a variance in the decisions as to 

 whether it is the company's duty to erect gates and bars at 



"" Mo. Pac. R. Co. V. Eckel, 49 Kan. 794. 



'"Toledo, W. & W. R. Co. v. Spangler, 71 HI- 568; Ewing v. Chic. 

 & A. R. Co., 72 id. 25; Chic. & A. R. Co. v. Engle, 58 id. 381; Fhnt & 

 P. M. R. Co. V. Lull, 28 Mich. 510; Bowman v. Troy & B. R. Co., 37 

 Barb. (N. Y.) 516; Rippe v. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 42 Minn. 34; 

 Ohio, I. & W. R. Co. V. Heady (Ind. App.), 28 N. E. Rep. 212; Blan- 

 ford V. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 71 la. 310; Ryan v. Northern Pac. 

 R. Co. (Wash.), S3 Pac. Rep. 824; Internat. & G. N. R. Co. v. Dunham, 

 68 Tex. 231. 



"" Lathrop v. Cent. la. R. Co., 6g la. 105. 



'" Toledo, W. & W. R. Co. v. Howell, 38 Ind. 447- 



And see Cleveland & P. R. Co. v. McConnell, 26 O. St. 57; Nashville, 

 C. & St. L. R. Co. V. Hughes, 94 Tenn. 450; Crawford v. N. Y. Cent. 

 & H. R. R. Co., 18 Hun (N. Y.) 108; Iba v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 

 45 Mo. 469. 



"" Coyle V. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 62 la. 518. 



"' Gerren v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 60 Mo. 405. 



'" Elliott V. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 66 Mo. 683. 



