676 LIABILITY UNDER THE STATUTES. 



leaves improved or fenced land.'^^ But the statutes do not 

 g-enerally require that guards should be constiTicted at private 

 crossings.*^* In New York it was held that they should be 

 constructed in village streets as well as on country highways, 

 but it was said that, where the street crossed a railway running 

 on another street, cattle-guards were not to be constructed 

 longitudinally along the track so as to impede passage along 

 the street crossing it.^^^ A company is not bound to place 

 guards around a cut away from a public street within city 

 limits to prevent animals unlawfully grazing there from fall- 

 ing down the bank.^^® Nor is the company liable where the 

 highway has not been legally laid out.*^^ And cattle-guards 

 are not to be constructed where they would be dangerous to 

 the employees of the company.^** And it was held in a Mis- 

 sissippi case that, where the stock law was in force, it was 

 unnecessary to erect stock gaps and cattle-guards.^"'" The 

 company is not obliged to provide places for stock to leave 

 the track.^®" The question of constructing cattle-guards or 

 fences at or near station grounds will be discussed in the next 

 section. 



The object of a cattle-guard is to insure the safety of both 



"° Mo. Pac. R. Co. V. Morrow, 32 Kan. 217; Kan. City, M. & B. R. Co. 

 V. Jones, 73 Miss. 397. And see 2 Rap. & Mack. Dig. Ry. Law, 594. 

 Otherwise, in Georgia: Rossignoll v. Northeastern R. Co., 75 Ga. 354. 



'"See Bartlett v. Dubuque & S. C. R. Co., 20 la. 188; Pennsylvania Co. 

 V. Spaulding, 112 Ind. 47; Bond v. Evansville & T. H. R. Co., loo id. 301. 



Otherwise, in New Hampshire: Chapin v. Sullivan R. Co., 39 N. H. 

 564. 



'"Brace v. N. Y. Cent. R. Co., 27 N. Y. 269. See Vanderkar v. 

 Rensselaer & S. R. Co., 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 390; Parker v. Same, 16 id. 

 315- 



'" Clary v. Burlington & M. R. Co., 14 Neb. 232, 



"' Hunter v. Chic, St. P., M. & O. R. Co.. 99 Wis. 613. 



""Pearson v. Chic, B. & K. C. R. Co., 33 Mo. App. 543; Chic & 

 E. I. R. Co. V. Modesitt, 124 Ind. 212; Ft. Wayne, C. & L. R. Co. f. 

 Herbold, 99 id. 91; Pennsylvania Co. v. Lindley, 2 Ind. App. in. 



""Canton, A. & N. R. Co. v. French, 75 Miss. 939. 



""Gilman v. Sioux City & P. R. Co., 62 la. 299. 



