and valid.10 And they may be made obligatory upon a company, whether chartered before or after their pas sage. 11 The duty to erect involves the duty to maintain fences and cattle-guards required by the statute." 12 But only ordinary and reasonable care and diligence in this respect are required; 18 and the company will be allowed a reasonable time within which to make repairs.14 The obligation to fence takes effect as soon as the company opens the fields of an adjoining landowner for the purpose of constructing its road; 15 and the liability of the company extends to all kinds of animals that would be kept from the track by an ordinary fence.16 A requirement to fence against "cattle, horses, sheep, and hogs" includes asses 17 and mules.18 But the company need not fence against dogs. 19 A requirement that the company shall fence "either or both" sides of its property, means either or both, as occasion may demand; 20 and a requirement to keep its road "securely fenced" includes the duty to construct and keep in repair proper cattle-guards on each side of highways crossing its track.21 A requirement to keep cattle-guards at "road" crossings applies to a street crossing in a village or city.22 In most of the states of the Union, the benefit of statutes requiring railway companies to fence their roads, extends to all owners of cattle, though not adjoining proprietors, and although it does not appear how and whence the cattle came upon the road.23 But in some of the states, and in England, the rule is otherwise; 24 and the company is not bound to fence against cattle straying upon a highway running next to and parallel with the railroad; 25 though it may be liable with respect to cattle lawfully passing along the highway.26 If cattle stray upon the track of a railroad at a point where it is not required to be fenced, and are killed, the owner cannot recover without showing negligence on the part of the company.27 And contributory negligence may defeat an action for an injury arising from neglect of a railway company to keep in repair a fence once built.28 An adjoining landowner who has received from the company compensation for maintaining fences himself, cannot recover for injuries to cattle occasioned by defects therein.29 But a contract by the landowner with the company, to keep in repair fences between his land and the road, does not release the company from its liability to others than the owner.30 1 Tonawanda R. R. Co. v. Munger, 5 Denio, 255; Toledo R. R. Co. e. Wickery, 44 Ill. 76; Knight v. New Orleans etc. R. R. Co. 15 La. An. 105, Vandergrift v. Del. R. R. Co. 2 Houst. 287; Memphis etc. R. R. Co. v. Orr, 43 Miss. 279. 2 Vandergrift v. Del. R. R. Co. 2 Houst. 287; and see Fernon v. Dubuque etc. R. R. Co. 22 Iowa, 528; Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Milton, 14 Mon. B. 75. 3 Bartlett v. Dubuque etc. R. R. Co. 20 Iowa, 188. 4 Buxton v. North Eastern Railw. Co. Law R. 3 Q. B. 549. 5 Lackawanna etc R. R. Co. v. Chenewith, 52 Pa. St. 382. 6 Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Ballard, 2 Met (Ky.) 177; Trout v. Va. & Tenn. R. R. Co. 23 Gratt. 619; Indianapolis etc. R. R. Co. v. Caldwell, 9 Ind. 357; Cleveland v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 35 Iowa, 220; and compare McCoy r. California etc. R. R. Co. 40 Cal. 532; Galpin v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 19 Wis. 604; Quimby v. Vt. Cent. R. R. 28 Vt. 387. The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to show want of ordinary care on the part of the company or its servants: Schnier v. Chicago etc. R. K. 40 Iowa, 337; Mobile etc. R. R. Co. v. Hudson. 50 Miss. 572. Compare Mobile etc. R. R. Co. v. Williams, 53 Ala. 5.5; Roof v. Railroad Co. 4 So. Car. 61; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Keliam, 92 Ill. 245; 34 Am. R. 128. 7 See Suydam v. Moore, 8 Barb. 358; New Albany etc. R. R. Co. v. Tilton, 12 Ind. 3; Pittsburgh etc. Railw. Co. r. Methven, 21 Ohio St. 586; Buxton r. North Eastern Railw. Co. Law R. 3 Q. B. 549; Jones v. Seligman, 81 N. Y. 190. 8 Fanning v. Long Island R. R. Co. 2 Thomp. & C. 585; Staats v. Hudson River R. R. Co. 4 Abb. N. Y. App. 257; 3 Keyes, 196; 33 How. Pr. 139; Purdy v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 61 N. Y. 353; Jeffersonville etc. R. R. Co. v. Ross, 37 Ind. 545; Gorman v. Pacific R. R. Co. 26 Mo. 441; Norris v. Androscoggin R. R. Co. 39 Me. 273; and compare Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Umphenour, 69 Ill. 198; Spence v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 25 Iowa, 139; Morris v. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co. 58 Mo. 78. 9 Staats v. Hudson River R. R. Co. 4 Abb. N. Y. App. 287; 33 How.Pr. 139; 3 Keyes, 196; Thorpe v. Rutland etc. R. R. Co. 27 Vt. 140; Penn'a R. R. Co. v. Riblet, 66 Pa. St. 164; Bulkley v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 27 Conn. 479; Wilder v. Maine etc. R. R. Co. 65 Me. 332; New Albany etc. K. K. Co. v. Maiden, 12 Ind. 10; Jeffersonville etc. R. R. Co. v. Nichols, 30 id. 321. 10 Trice v. Hannibal etc. R. R. Co. 49 Mo. 438; Penn'a R. R. Co. v. Riblet, 66 Pa. St. 164. 11 Sawyer. Vt. etc. R. R. Co. 105 Mass. 196; Staats v. Hudson River R. R. Co. 4 Abb. N. Y. App. 287; 33 How. Fr. 139; 3 Keyes, 196; Wilder v. Me. etc. R. R. Co. 65 Me. 332; and see Purdy v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 61 N. Y. 353. Whether the lessor of a railroad who has parted with possession can be held liable for the neglect of the lessee to fence, is questioned in Ditchett v. Spuyten Duyvil etc. R. R. 67 N. Y. 425. Compare Tracy v. Troy etc. R. R. Co. 55 Barb. 529; 38 N. Y. 433; and see, as to the rule under statutes of different states: Wyman v. Penobscot etc. R. R. Co. 46 Me. 162; Clement v. Canfield, 28 Vt. 302; Fort Wayne etc. R. R. Co. r. Hinebaugh, 43 Ind. 354; Stephens v. Davenport etc. R. R. Co. 36 Iowa, 327. 12 McDowell v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co. 37 Barb. 195; Spinner v. N. Y. Cent. etc. R. R. Co. 6 Hun, 600; Brown v. Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co. 21 Wis. 39. 13 Robinson v. Grand Trunk Railw. Co. 32 Mich. 322; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. r. Swearingen, 47 Ill. 206; McCormick v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 41 Iowa, 193; Lemmon v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 32 id. 151. 14 Antisdel v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 26 Wis. 145; 7 Am. R. 44; Toledo etc. R. R. Co. v. Daniels, 21 Ind. 256; Wheeler v. Erie Railw. Co. 2 Thomp. & C. 634; Davis v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 40 Iowa, 292; and see Toledo etc. Railw. Co. v. Cohen, 44 Ind. 444; Stephenson v. Grand Trunk Railw. Co. 34 Mich. 323; Haskings v. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co. 58 Mo. 302. 15 Holden v. Rutland etc. R. R. Co. 30 Vt. 297. Compare Rockford etc. R. R. Co. v. Heflin, 65 Ill. 366; Gilman etc. R. R. Co. v. Spencer, 76 Ill. 192; Gardner v. Smith, 7 Mich. 410; Clark v. Vt. etc. R. R. Co. 28 Vt. 103. 16 Indianapolis etc. R. R. Co. v. Marshall, 27 Ind. 300; Tallman v. Syracuse etc. R. R. Co. 4 Abb. N. Y. App. 351. Compare Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Utley, 38 Ill. 410; O'Flaherty v. Union Railw. Co. 45 Mo. 70; Schmidt v. Milwaukee etc. Railw. Co. 23 Wis. 186; Bessant v. Great West. Railw. Co. 8 Com. B. N. S. 368. 17 Ohio etc R. R. Co. v. Brubaker, 47 Ill. 462. 18 Toledo etc. R. R. Co. v. Cole, 50 Ill. 184. 19 Wilson v. Wilmington etc. R. R. Co. 10 Rich. 52. 20 Walsh v. Virginia etc. R. R. Co. 8 Nev. 110. Compare Tredway v. Railroad Co. 43 Iowa, 527; Haxton v. Pittsburgh etc. R. R. Co. 26 Ohio St. 214. 21 Pittsburgh etc. R. R. Co. v. Eby, 55 Ind. 567. 22 Brase v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co. 27 N. Y. 269. 23 See New Albany etc. R. R. Co. v. Astou, 13 Ind. 545; Corwin v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 13 N. Y. 42; Purdy v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 61 id. 353; Browne v. Providence etc. R. R. Co. 12 Gray, 55; Isbell v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 27 Coun. 393. 24 See Giles r. Boston etc. R. R. Co. 55 N. H. 552; Bemis v. Conn. etc. R. R. Co. 42 Vt. 375; 1 Ain. R. 339; Ells v. Pacific R. R. 55 Mo. 278; Marfell v. South Wales etc. R. R. Co. 8 Com. B. N. S. 525. 25 Eames v. Salem etc. R. R. Co. 98 Mass. 560; Towns v. Cheshire R. R. Co. 21 N. H. 363; Jackson v. Rutland etc. R. R. Co. 25 Vt. 150; Ricketts v. East India etc. Railw. Co. 12 Com. B. 160. Compare Sawyer v. Vt. etc. R. R. Co. 105 Mass. 196. 26 Midland Railw. Co. v. Daykin, 17 Com. B. 126; Manchester Railw. Co. v. Wallis, 14 id. 243; 25 Eng. L. & Eq. 373. 27 Indianapolis etc. R. R. Co. v. Christy, 43 Ind. 143; Swearingen v. Mo. etc. R. R. Co. 64 Mo. 73; and see Jeffersonville etc. R. R. Co. v. Underhill, 48 Ind. 389: Brady r. Reussalaer etc. R. R. Co. 1 Hun, 378; 3 Thomp. & C. 537; Flint etc. R. R. Co. v. Lull, 28 Mich. 510; Robertson v. Atlantic etc. R. R. Co. 64 Mo. 412; Latty e. Burlington etc. R. R. Co. 33 Iowa, 250; Peoria etc. R. R. Co. v. Barton, 80 Ill. 72; Roberts v. Great Western Railw. Co. 4 Com. B. N. S. 506. 28 Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Seirer, 60 Ill. 295; Jones v. Sheboygan etc. R. R. Co.42 Wis. 306. Compare Trow v. Vt. Cent. R. R Co. 24 Vt. 487; BOONE CORP.-3. Peoria etc. R. R. Co. v. Champ, 75 Ill. 577; Shepard v. Buffalo etc. R. R. Co. 35 N. Y. 641. 29 Terre Haute etc. R. R. Co. v. Smith, 16 Ind. 102; Warren v. Keokuk etc. R. R. Co. 41 Iowa, 484; Duffy v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 2 Hilt. 496. See Cin. etc. R. K. Co. v. Ridge, 54 Ind. 39; Gill v. Atlantic etc. R. R. Co. 27 Ohio St. 240. 30 Warren v. Keokuk etc. R. R. Co. 41 Iowa, 484; and compare New Albany etc. R. R. Co. v. Maiden, 12 Ind. 10. § 254. Highway crossings.-If a railway company constructs its road across a highway without lawful authority, or in a manner not authorized by law,2 the road is a nuisance, and the company is liable to indictment. And where a railway company is authorized to construct its line across a highway, it must be done with the least possible inconvenience to the public; and it is the duty of the company to keep the crossing in a safe condition. The company will be held liable for all unnecessary obstructions, by stopping trains or otherwise, at crossings; and it is liable to a city for the damages which the latter has been compelled to pay by reason of a defect in a street, caused by a railroad crossing not properly constructed or maintained." Nor is it relieved of the obligation to keep a crossing in a safe condition, because of a slight deflection in the highway by the proper authorities, whereby the precise place of crossing was changed. If a railway company constructs a bridge over a crossing, it is the duty of the company to maintain the same in repair; and this duty extends to the approaches to the bridge, as a part thereof, connecting it with the highway.10 Neither the public nor the railway company have an exclusive right of passage at a crossing, but their rights are concurrent; 11 and reasonable care and prudence must be exercised by each, so as not to interfere unnecessarily with the other.12 The duty of making a signal on approaching a crossing is imposed upon railroad companies; 13 but it is equally the duty of a person crossing a railway track to be on his guard against danger to himself and to his property.14 Running trains at an excessive rate of speed at crossings is held to be negligence; 15 and if And collision is caused thereby the company is liable.16 if a railway company has created extra danger at a crossing, as where it is made necessary for passengers to cross the track in passing to and from its depot to its trains, 17 the company is bound to use extra precautions, and such as are adequate to insure the safety of every passenger exercising ordinary care.18 If a railway company lays its tracks in a street or public highway, it is bound to lay them in a proper manner, and to put and maintain the street or highway in as good repair as it was before; 13 and for a failure in either of these respects, the company is liable.20 In restoring a highway across which its road has been constructed, the company has power to take lands for the purpose.21 1 Commonw. v. Vt. etc. R. R. 4 Gray, 22. 2 Commonw. v. Nashua etc. R. R. 2 Gray, 54. 3 Commonw. v. Vt. etc. R. R. 4 Gray, 22; Commonw. v. Erie etc. R. R. 29 Pa. St. 339. Compare Cominonw. v. Hartford etc. R. R. 14 Gray, 379. 4 Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. State, 3 Head, 523; Commonw. v. Erie etc. R. R. 27 Pa. St. 339; Queen v. Sharpe, 3 Eng. Railw. Cas. 27. 5 Pittsburg etc. R. R. Co. v. Dunn, 56 Pa. St. 230; Gale v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co. 76 N. Y. 5.4; Farley v. Railroad Co. 42 Iowa, 234; and see State v. Wilmington etc. R. R. Co. 74 No. Car. 143. 6 Murray v. South Car. R. R. Co. 10 Rich. 227; Jonesville v. Mil. waukee etc. R. R. Co. 7 Wis. 484; Veazie v. Penobscot R. R. Co. 49 Me. 119. 7 Portland v. Atlantic etc. R. R. Co. 66 Me. 435. See also Woburn v. Boston etc. R. R. Co. 109 Mass. 283; Snow v. Housatonic R. R. Co. 8 Allen, 441. 8 People v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 67 Ill. 118. Compare Brookins v. Central etc. R. R. Co. 48 Ga. 523. 9 Roe v. Elmendorf, 52 How. Pr. 232. 10 Hayes v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 9 Hun, 63; People v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 74 N. Y. 302. 11 Pennsylvania Co. v. Krick, 47 Ind. 368; North Penn'a R. R. Co. v. Heileman, 49 Pa. St. 60. That the public use is subordinate to the right of the company to use its road: see Ogle v. Phila. etc. R. R. Co. 3 Houst. 267. Where the road of one railway company crosses that of another, the rights of the former are made subordinate to those of the latter: Pittsburg etc. R. R. Co. v. South-west etc. Railw. Co. 77 Pa. st. 173. 12 Pittsburg etc. R. R. Co. v. Maurer, 21 Ohio St. 421; Toledo etc. R. R. Co. v. Shuckman, 50 Ind. 42; Gorten v. Erie Railw. Co. 45 N. Y. 650. 13 Murray v. South Car. R. R. Co. 10 Rich. 227; Indianapolis etc. R. R. Co. v. Stables, 62 Ill. 313; Pittsburg etc. R. R. Co. v. Dunn, 56 Pa. St. 280; Continental Impr. Co. v. Stead, 95 U. S. 161. 14 Penn'a R. R. Co. v. Beale, 73 Pa. St. 504; 13 Am. R. 753; Chicago |