CROSSINGS ; (iATKS. 675 



the gate to keep it closed against the act of a third person.'** 

 Otherwise, where cattle went through a gate the fastening of 

 which had been negligently left by the company so that a 

 stranger passing through could not and did not shut it.'** 

 But where the owner of stock left them in a fenced pasture 

 with no one in charge and went to another State, and the ani- 

 mals went through a gate left open by trespassers and were 

 negligently injured by a train, it was held that he was not 

 guilty of contributory negligence and might recover against 

 the company.'^" 



A statute allowing land-owners to construct farm crossings 

 across a railroad track and, if the track is fenced, to erect 

 gates, does not repeal a law making railroad companies liable 

 for killing stock on an unfenced, or insufficiently fenced, 

 track. '^' 



141. Cattle-Guards. — Railway companies are generally re- 

 quired by statute to construct and keep in repair sufficient 

 cattle-guards wherever the track is intersected by a high- 

 way,*''^ and, in some cases, wherever the track enters or 



'" Morrison v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R, Co.. 27 Mo. App. 418. 

 And see Binicker v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 83 Mo. 660; Harding 

 V. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 100 la. 677; Tex. & Pac. R. Co. v. Glenn 

 (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. Rep. 84s ; Lambert v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 

 28 Low. Can. Jur. 3. 



""Chisholm v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 53 Minn. 122. 



"° Toledo, W. & W. R. Co. v. Milligan, 52 Ind. 505. 



"'Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Hughes, 2 Ind. App. 68; Ohio & 

 Miss. R. Co. V. Wrape, 4 id. 108. 



'=' Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co, v. Tretts, 96 Ind. 450; Grand Rapids 

 & I. R. Co. V. Jones, 81 id. 523; Evansville & C. R. Co. v. Barbee, 74 

 id. 169; Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Eby. 55 id. $67; Atchison, T. 

 & S. F. R. Co. V. Shaft, 33 Kan. 521; McGhee v. Guyn, 98 Ky. 209; 

 Younger v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.), 41 S. W. Rep. 25; Lake Shore 

 & M. S. R. Co. V. Sharpe, 38 O. St. 150; Miller v. Northern Pac. R. 

 Co., 36 Minn. 296; Houston & G. N. R. Co. v. Meador, 50 Tex. 77; Hun- 

 ter V. Chic, St. P., M. & O. R. Co., 99 Wis. 613. 



But see Layne v. Ohio River R. Co., 35 W. Va. 438. 



