684 T/IABILITY UNDEK THE STATUTB^S. 



to be kept open for the convenience of the pubHc in the use 

 of the road.^''^ And it was held in New York that the fact that 

 a railroad crossing was at or near the station and that to place 

 a cattle-guard there would inconvenience the company will 

 not excuse it from complying with the positive requirements 

 of the statute.^"^ But, ordinarily, cattle-guards need not be 

 constructed at stations.^*'' Nor is a company negligent in 

 not placing fences or screens in station grounds to prevent 

 the frightening of horses.""^ 



The question of the proper extent of station grounds is one 

 for the jury to determine.^"® But this cannot be done col- 

 laterally, where the material facts are undisputed.^^" Station 

 grounds prima facie include all the right of way left unfenced 

 between the switches and cattle-guards on either side of the 

 platform, with the switches and side-tracks, unless they are 

 shown to be unreasonable in extent.^^^ Land not necessary 

 for station grounds or switch-yards, though used as such, 

 must be fenced. ^^^ And an indefinite intent to use ground 

 for a public purpose is not sulificient to relieve the company 

 from liability.^*' 



=°° Wabash R. Co. v. Howard, S7 HI- App. 66. 



"» Bradley v. Buffalo, N. Y. & E. R. Co., 34 N. Y. 427. 



""Robertson r. Atlantic & P. R. Co., 64 Mo. 412; Pearson v. Chic, 

 B. & K. C. R. Co., 33 Mo. App. 543; Pierce v. Andrews, 13 O. Circ.Ct. 513. 



""Flagg V. Chic, D. & C. G. T. J. R. Co., 96 Mich. 30; Simkin v. 

 London & N. W. R. Co., 21 Q. B. D. 453: 



"^ Wabash R. Co. v. Howard, supra; Pearson v. Chic, B. & K. C. R. 

 Co., supra; Dinwoodie v. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 70 Wis. i6o. 



'■"McGrath v. Detroit, M. & M. R. Co., 57 Mich. 555,— followed in 

 Rinear v. Grand Rapids & I. R. Co., 70 id. 620. 



'" Mills & Le Clair Lumber Co. v. Chic, St. P., M. & O. R. Co., 94 

 Wis. 336. 



='' Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Shaft, 33 Kan. 521; Chic, R. L & 

 P. R. Co. V. Green, 4 Kan. App. 133; Tex. & Pac R. Co. v. Billingsly 

 (Tex. Civ. App.), 37 S. W. Rep. 27; Rinear v. Grand Rapids & I. R. 

 Co., supra. 



See Eaton v. McNeilly, 31 Oreg. 128, where the fact that the station 

 grounds were larger than the law allowed was held immaterial. 



"' Cox V. Minneapolis, S. S. M. & A. R. Co., 41 Minn. loi. 



