()88 LIABILITY UNDER THE STATUTES. 



lation liability has been extended to lessees operating or run- 

 ning the road.^^* In Indiana, the lessee running the road in 

 its "own name" is not liable for killing stock on an unfenced 

 track ; otherwise, where it runs it "in the corporate name of 

 the owner" : there it is liable jointly and severally with the 

 owner.'*" 



Where the company has gone into the hands of a receiver, 

 he is the proper defendant.^*i Under the Indiana statute an 

 action lies against the company for an injury resulting from 

 its failure to fence though the road is controlled and run by a 

 receiver in bankruptcy.^*- Under the Kansas statute the 

 company may be sued after the receiver is discharged for 

 stock killed while the road was in his hands, where the com- 

 pany might have fenced before he was appointed but failed 

 to do so.^"* 



A contractor for the construction of a road is liable as 

 an "agent of the corporation" when he throws down fences 

 by which animals go on the track and are killed.^** But a 

 company is not Hable for stock escaping from unfenced land 

 and killed by the employees of the contractor building the 

 road.^*^ 



°°° See Clary v. la. Midland R. Co., 37 la. 344; Stephens v. Davenport 

 & St. P. R. Co., 36 id. 327; Stewart v. Chic. & N. R. Co., 27 id. 282; 

 Liddle v. Keokuk, Mt. P. & M. R. Co., 23 id. 378. 



"° Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Bolner, 57 Ind. 572, And see Cine, 

 H. & I. R. Co. V. McDougall, 108 id. 179; Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. 

 R. Co. V. Thompson, 21 Ind. App. 355. 



"If it is sought to hold the owner of the road liable for its lessee's act, 

 the relation between the roads must be pleaded, with the appropriate facts 

 necessary to create the liability": Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Rooker, 

 13 Ind. App. 600. 



™Brockert v. Central la. R. Co., 82 la. 369; Internat. & G. N. R. Co. 

 V. Bender, 87 Tex. 99. 



"' Indianapolis, C. & L. R. Co. v. Ray, 51 Ind. 269. 



"'Kan. Pac. R. Co. v. Wood, 24 Kan. 619. 



°" Gardner v. Smith, 7 Mich. 410. And the fact that the owner turned 

 his sheep into the field while the contractor was throwing down fences 

 was held not to aflect the liability of the latter: Ibid. 



"" Gordon v. Chic, S. F. & C. R. Co., 44 Mo. App. 201. 



