680 LIABILITY UNDER THE STATUTES. 



cover without using every means an ordinarily prudent per- 

 son would use to protect them.^*" 



An agreement of a company to keep and maintain cattle- 

 guards on each side of a person's land to prevent stock run- 

 ning at large from trespassing, is limited by the time it should 

 operate its road over his land and need not be in writing under 

 the provision of the Statute of Frauds requiring an agreement 

 not to be performed within one year to be in writing.^ ^^ 



In some cases, the fact that the animal was in the highway 

 unlawfully or through the owner's negligence has been held 

 not to prevent recovery for an injury resulting from a de- 

 fective cattle-guard.^ ^^ This was formerly the rule in Can- 

 ada, ^*^ but the statute has been changed and now the com- 

 pany is not liable unless the animals got on the track from a 

 "place where they might properly be." ^^■' And a similar 

 rule is followed in some of the States. ^*^ 



Statutes requiring railroad companies already in existence 

 to construct cattle-guards are constitutional.^®® And a statute 

 requiring a company to put in a cattle-guard when a land- 



"" Ward V. Paducah & M. R. Co., 4 Fed. Rep. 862; Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. 

 Cox, 2 Tex. App. (Civ. Cas.) 217. 



"" Ark. Midland R. Co. v. Whitley, 54 Ark. 199. 



"^^ White ^.Utica & B. R. R. Co., 15 Hun (N. Y.) 333; Sheaf v. Same, 

 2 Thomp. & C. (N. Y) 388; Harwood v. Bennington & R. R. Co., 67 Vt. 

 664. 



See Hance v. Cayuga & S. R. Co., 26 N. Y. 428,— said in i Thomp. Negl. 

 530, to be disregarded in later opinions of the Supreme Court. 



'Tontiac Pac. June. R. Co. v. Brady, Montr. L. Rep. 4 Q. B. 346; 

 Huist V. Buffalo & L. H. R. Co., 16 U. C. Q. B. 299. 



""Nixon V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 23 Ont. 124; Can. Pac. R. Co. v. 

 Cross, Rap. Jud. Quebec, 3 B. R. 170; McKenzie v. Can. Pac. R. Co., 

 14 Leg. News (Can.) 410; Simpson v. Great Western R. Co., 17 U. C. 

 Q. B. 57; Whitman v. W. & A. R. Co., 6 Russ. & Geld. (Nov. Sco.) 271. 



'" Chapin v. Sullivan R. Co., 39 N. H. 564; Hill v. Concord & M. R. 

 Co. (N. H.), 32 Atl. Rep. 766; Maynard v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 40 

 W. Va. 331. 



■*■ Thorpe v. Rutland & B. R. Co., 27 Vt. 140; Gulf, C, & S. F. R. Co. 

 V. Rowland, 70 Tex. 298. 



