CATTLE-GUARDS. 679 



which must be determined by the jury under all the circum- 

 stances in the case, e. g., the location of the road, the position 

 and condition of the guard, the number of animals which 

 might reasonably be apprehended to be at large, the pre- 

 vailing storms, the nature and character of the weather 

 and all other facts bearing upon the question."* In Minne- 

 sota, the rule is that, except under extraordinary circum- 

 stances, reasonable care do^s not require the company to re- 

 move snow and ice from cattle-guards.^''^ 



It should be shown that the company had notice of the 

 defect, or by ordinary diligence might have had notice thereof 

 and have repaired the same before the injury was inflicted.^'" 

 Where the company, by agreement with the land-owner, 

 maintains cattle-guards and wing fences, the grantee of the 

 coimpany is chargeable with notice of such guards and fences 

 and is thereby warned that there is some claim of right con- 

 nected therewith.^^'^ 



The land-owner is not negligent in leaving the whole mat- 

 ter of constructing and repairing cattle-guards to the com- 

 pany which has impliedly contracted to perform the work."^ 

 And a statute authorizing a land-owner to repair cattle-guards 

 where the company fails to do so, imposes no duty on him 

 and he is not guilty of contributory negligence with regard 

 to damage caused by cattle entering his land."" But a land- 

 owner having knowledge that straying animals may pass over 

 defective cattle-guards and destroy his crops cannot re- 



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



""Stacey v. Winona & St. P. R. Co.. 42 Minn. 158; Blais v. Minne- 

 apolis & St. L. R. Co., 34 id. 57. 



"" Ctebbnck v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 77 Mo, 591. And see Kansas 

 City, F. S. & M. R. Co. v. Grimes, 50 Kan. 655. 



"'Toledo, St. L. & K. C. R. Co. v. Fensteraaker, 3 Ind. App. 151. 



"'Texas & St. L. R. Co. v. Young, 60 Tex. 201. And see Mo. Pac. R. 

 Co. V. Lynch, 31 Kan. 531. 



See, as to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff's tenant. La 

 Flarnme v. Detroit & M. R. Co., 109 Mich. 509- 



'" San Antonio & A. P. R. Co. v. Knoepfli, 82 Tex. 270. 



