EVIDENCK ; DAMAGES. 697 



cattle caused by fright when they were on the company's 

 land.^o" 



It was held in a Tennessee case that in an action by the 

 •company against the owner of the abutting land for removing 

 a fence which it was bound to maintain, it could not recover 

 the value of the stock of a third person for which it had paid, 

 as the killing of such stock was not a direct consequence of 

 the removal of the fence.*"" But, in an Iowa case, where 

 the defendant wrongfully removed a gate which the plaintiff 

 company had erected to keep animals ofif its right of way over 

 the former's land, and the animal of a third person was in- 

 jured, and the plaintiff, by reason of its negligence in not re- 

 placing the gate, was compelled to pay the value of such ani- 

 mal, it was held that the plaintiil's negligence did not consti- 

 tute the omission of any duty which it owed the defendant, 

 and that it could recover from the latter the amount paid for 

 the animal.*"'' 



In Texas it was held that the damages to which one was 

 entitled who was cut off from reaching his cattle on the op- 

 posite side of a railroad track by the company's wrongful 

 closing up of gates, were the additional expense of feeding 

 the cattle by another and more circuitous route.*"* 



A company failing to construct cattle-guards is liable for 

 resulting injuries to crops by cattle to the extent of the actual 

 value of the crops destroyed.*"* A reasonable compensation 

 should be allowed for the time and labor necessarily expended 

 in trying to save the crops from destruction and the expense 

 -of fitting them for market, and the value of the portion saved. 



™ Dooley v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 36 Mo. App. 381. 



°"' Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Guthrie, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 432. 



=" Chic. & N. R. Co. V. Dunn, S9 la. 619. 



'■"Tex. & Pac. R. Co. v. Newton (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. Rep. 



475- 



•" Donald v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co., 44 la. iS7; St. Louis, W. & 

 W. R. Co. V. Curl, 28 Kan. 622; Houston, E. & W. T. R. Co. v. Adams, 

 '63 Tex. 200. 



