670 LIABILITY UNDER THE STATUTES. 



private farm crossings as a part of the statutory obligation to 

 fence."" In Indiana, the company has been held to be bound 

 to fence at private crossings, but not as against one for whose 

 benefit the crossing is maintained, nor as against one v^rho has 

 undertaken to keep up the fence,"^ nor where a fence would 

 exclude land-owners from their private passage to a high- 

 way."^ But, under a late statute, the erection of gates and 

 keeping them locked are obligations imposed on land-owners, 

 for the violation of which they are liable. The company has no 

 control over the construction and use of farm crossings and 

 is not liable whether there are gates or not, unless the injury 

 was caused by the negligence of its servant,^^* or the company 

 had agreed to fence in consideration of the right of way,"* 

 or to keep the gates closed and in proper repair.^^^ 



In Tennessee a railway company is not required to fence 

 at private crossings. ^^^ It is otherwise in Ohio.^^^ In Texas 

 it has been held that there is no implied reservation of power 

 in the legislature to compel a company fencing its track ac- 

 cording to previous laws to construct crossings within en- 

 closures for the benefit of land-owners.^^* But an owner who 

 has granted the right of way is entitled to such crossings as 

 are reasonably necessary."^ In Minnesota it was held that 

 where the right to an open crossing existed by contract be- 

 tween the company and the land-owner, the former might 



"° See I Thomp. Negl. 525. 



'" Evansville & T. H. R. Co. v. Hosier, loi Ind. 597; Louisville, N. A. 

 & C. R. Co. V. Consol'd. Trunk Line Co., 4 Ind. App. 40. And see 

 Baltimore, O. & C. R. Co. v. Kreiger, 90 Ind. 380. 



'" Croy V. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co., 97 Ind. 126. 



"'Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Etzler, 119 Ind. 39; Pennsylvania 

 Co. V. Spaulding, 112 id. 47. 



"'Chic. & A. R. Co. V. Barnes, 116 Ind. 126; Toledo, St. L. & K. C. 

 R. Co. V. Burgan, 9 Ind. App. 604. 



"• Evansville & T. H. R. Co. v. Hosier, 114 Ind. 447. 



"" Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Thompson, loi Tenn. 197. 



"' Pittsburg & L. E. R. Co. v. Cunnington, 39 O. St. 327. 



"' Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. Rowland, 70 Tex. 298. 



"• Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. Ellis, 70 Tex. 307. 



