CATTLE-GUARDS. 677 



passengers aiid animaJs.i*'^ Such guards are sometimes con- 

 sidered a necessary part of the fence which railway companies 

 are required to construct.^ *^ But, where a company is liable in 

 double damages for injuries resulting from a failure to fence, 

 it was held that a cattle-guard was not an essential portion 

 of a fence, within the meaning of the statute, and that single 

 damages only were recoverable for a failure to keep such a 

 guard in repair.^ ^^ 



A cattle-guard means such an appHance as will be effectual. 

 A pit under the track is not sufficient : the guard should 

 extend across the entire right of way.^"* Where the track 

 is fenced, cross-fences are often a necessary part of the cattle- 

 guard in order to make the enclosure effectual.^®'' And where 

 cattle entered the track from an unfenced space between the 

 highway and the cattle-gnards and were killed, it was held 

 that the fact that it would have been dififiictilt or expensive 

 to enclose such space was no excuse.^®^ The question is not 

 could an animal under any circumstances cross the guard, 

 but rather, will the guard, under all ordinary circumstances, 

 prevent animals from getting on the track? ^^'^ So under 

 the Illinois statute it was held that cattle-guards need be suffi- 

 cient only to turn ordinary stock under ordinary circum- 



"' Wait V. Bennington & R. R. Co., 6i Vt. 268. 



'"New Albany & S. R. Co. v. Pace, 13 Ind. 411; Pittsburgh, C. & St. 

 L. R. Co. V. Eby, 55 id. 567; Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. Jones, 81 id. 

 523; Toledo, St. L. & K. C. R. Co. v. Franklin, 53 111. App. 632. 



™ Moriarty v. Cent. la. R. Co., 64 la. 696. 



'"Mo. Pac. R. Co. V. Manson, 31 Kan. 337; Heskett v. Wabash, St. L. 

 & P. R. Co., 61 la. 467; Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. v. Spencer, 72 Miss. 

 491; Grace v. Gulf & C. R. Co. (Miss.), 25 South. Rep. 875. And see 

 Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Porter, 97 Ind. 267. 



""Edwards v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co., 74 Mo. 117. 



'"■ Fort Wayne, C. & L. R. Co. v. Herbold, 99 Ind. 9i- And see Nelson 

 V. Great Northern R. Co., 52 Minn. 276. 



'"Wait V. Bennington & R. R. Co., 61 Vt. 268. 



And see, as to sufficiency, Timins v. Chic, R. I. & P. R- Co., 72 

 la. 94; Strong v. Chic. & N. R. Co., 95 id. 278. 



