696 LIABILITY UNDEK THE STATUTES. 



for such failure unconstitutional as a denial of the equal pro- 

 tection of the law.^** Double damages in such a case may be 

 recovered not only for the depreciation in value of the stock 

 resulting from their injuries but also for the value of the care 

 and attention properly bestowed in curing them.^®" The 

 proper practice has been said to be for the jury to find a ver- 

 dict for single damages and the court may then render judg- 

 ment for double damages.^*"' It has been held that, whtrt 

 jurisdiction is dependent on the amount in dispute, it is gov- 

 erned by the sum claimed as single damages and not by that 

 amount doubled.*"^ 



The measure of damages is the value of the cattle killed, and 

 not the cost of erecting and maintaining a secure fence.*"^ 

 The expense of keeping watch to guard cattle from straying 

 and of the diminution in value of the adjoining land by reason 

 of the failure to fence, falls within the police power of a 

 State.^"^ But where the statute limits the damages to in- 

 juries caused by the train, expenses incurred in watching or 

 herding cattle before the accident on account of the bad state 

 of the fences are not recoverable.*"* The company is not lia- 

 ble, by reason of its failure to fence, for the loss of flesh of 



"' Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U. S. 26; Mo. Pac. 

 R. Co. V. Humes, 115 id. 512; Spealman v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 71 Mo. ^34; 

 Tredway v. S. C. & St. P. R. Co., 43 la. 527. 



But, see Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37; Denver & R. G. 

 R. Co. V. Outcalt, 2 Colo. App. 395. 



™ Manwell v. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co., 80 la. 662. 



="» Wood V. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co., 58 Mo. 109. 



But see Memphis & L. R. Co. v. Carlley, 39 Ark. 246, cited in § 137., 

 supra. 



""^ Williams v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 80 Mo. 597. 



^"^ Chic. & A. R. Co. V. Barnes, 116 Ind. 126. So, of a cattle-guard: 

 Ind. Cent. R. Co. v. Moore, 23 id. 14. 



°™ Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Emmons, 149 U. S. 364. And see 

 Raridan v. Cent. la. R. Co., 69 la. 527; Nelson v. St. Louis & S. F. 

 R. Co., 49 Kan. 165; Chic, K. & N. R. Co. v. Behney, 48 id. 47. 



'" Young V. Erie & H. R. Co., 27 Ont. 530 ; Fouchon v. Ontario & 

 'Q. R. Co., n Leg. News (Can.) 74. 



