the duty is limited to enclosed or improved lands, or wood-lots belonging to a farm.1 Fences at Embankments, &c.—The company is required to fence the railroad when laid on an embankment erected in the bed of a canal, or on the tow-path of one which is abandoned; 3 or where the embankment is not sufficient to prevent cattle coming on the track; or where one railroad is laid by the side of another. But the duty has been held not to be incumbent in the case of a railroad laid upon public lands, or in the waters of the Hudson River.7 4 Liability for Injuries to Cattle coming on the Track at Places where the Company is not required to maintain Fences. - The company is not, at least in the absence of negligence, liable for injuries to cattle coming upon the track at places where, by the construction of the statute, it is not permitted or required to maintain a fence.8 Injury by Fright arising from Neglect to Fence. The injury may be inflicted, without a collision, by the animals taking fright at the noise of the train. In either case the company is liable if the injury is caused by its failure to fence its track as required by law.9 The Owner's Waiver of the Company's Duty to Fence. The duty to maintain fences and gates, imposed by statute on the company 58 Mo. 45; Walton v. St. Louis, I. M., & S. R. Co., 67 Mo. 56; Schable v. Han. & St. J. R. Co., 69 Mo. 91. 1 Perkins v. Eastern R Co., 29 Me. 307; Gilman v. European & N. A. R. Co., 60 Me. 235. 7 Schermerhorn v. Hudson River R. Co., 38 N. Y. 103. 8 Indianapolis, C., & L. R. Co. v. Warner, 35 Ind. 515; Jeffersonville, M., & I. R. Co. r. Huber, 42 Ind. 173; Davis v. Burlington & M. R. R. Co., 26 Iowa, 549; 2 White Water Valley R. Co. v. Quick, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Bull, 72 Ill. 537. 31 Ind. 127. 9 Young v. St. Louis, K. C., & N. R. 8 White Water Valley R. Co. v. Quick, Co., 44 Iowa, 172; ante, p. 417. Contra, 30 Ind. 127. under statutes of Indiana and Missouri. 4 Toledo, P., & W. R. Co. v. Sweeney, Peru & I. R. Co. v. Hasket, 10 Ind. 409; 41 Ill. 226. Indianapolis, B., & W. R. Co. v. McBrown, 5 Shepard v. Buffalo, N. Y., & E. R. Co., 46 Ind. 229; Louisville, N. A., & C. R. Co. 35 N. Y. 641. 110. 6 Walsh v. Va. & T. R. Co., 8 Nev. v. Smith, 58 Ind. 575; Baltimore, P., & C. R. Co. v. Thomas, 60 Ind. 107; Lafferty v. Han. & St. J. R. Co., 44 Mo. 291. See ante, Chap. XII. p. 348. for the benefit of the adjoining land-owner, may be waived by him, and the effect of such waiver is to relieve it of liability for injuries to cattle resulting from its omission to comply with the statute. It will, however, notwithstanding the waiver, remain liable for an intentional injury, or even, in some jurisdictions, for negligence only. The owner's agreement to maintain the fences or gates is such a waiver,2 and it binds his tenant as well as himself.3 Whether the waiver by the owner of the company's duty to maintain a fence will affect persons not in privity with him whose cattle stray upon his land, and thence enter on the track, depends upon the different constructions, already considered, which are put on the policy and intent of the legislation requiring the company to maintain fences. If the company is compelled to pay such parties for cattle, caused by the want of a fence, it is held entitled to indemnity from the land-owner who agreed to maintain the fence. The waiver is not affected by the company's breach of its agreement to furnish some other protection equivalent to that provided by statute, the owner's remedy for such breach being an action for damages upon the contract.6 The intent to waive the benefit of 'the statute must clearly appear from the terms of the agreement.7 The waiver will not be 1 Hurd v. Rutland & B. R. Co., 25 Vt. 116; Jackson v. Rutland & B. R. Co., 25 Vt. 150, 156, 157; Enright v. San Francisco & S. J. R. Co., 33 Cal. 230; Cornwall v. Sullivan R. Co., 28 N. H. 161; Tyson v. K. & D. M. R. Co., 43 Iowa, 207. 2 Tombs v. Rochester & S. R. Co., 18 Barb. 583; Talmadge v. Rensselaer & S. R. Co., 13 Barb. 493; Terre Haute & R. R. Co. v. Smith, 16 Ind. 102; Indianapolis, P., & C. R. Co. v. Petty, 25 Ind. 413; Fort Wayne, M., & C. R. Co. v. Mussetter, 48 Ind. 286; Cincinnati, H., & I. R. Co. v. Ridge, 54 Ind. 39; Baltimore P. & C. R. Co. v. Johnson, 59 Ind. 188; Cincinnati, H., & D. R. Co. v. Waterson, 4 Ohio St. 424, 434; Pittsburg, C., & St. L. R. Co. v. Smith, 26 Ohio St. 124; Eames v. Worcester & N. R. Co., 105 Mass. 193 See New Albany & S. R. Co. v. Maiden, 12 Ind. 10; Poler v. New York Cent. R. Co., 16 N. Y. 476; Shepard v. Buffalo, N. Y., & E. R. Co., 35 N. Y. 641. 3 Indianapolis, P., & C. R. Co. v. Shimer, 17 Ind. 295; Indianapolis, P., & 4 Jeffersonville, M., & I. R. Co., v. Nichols, 30 Ind. 321; Cincinnati, H., & I. R. Co. v. Ridge, 54 Ind. 39; Gill v. Atlantic & G. W. R. Co., 27 Ohio St. 240; Warren v. K. & D. M. R. Co., 41 Iowa, 484; Gilman v. European & N. A. R. Co., 60 Me. 235; Corwin v. New York & E. R. Co., 13 N. Y. 42; Shepard r. Buffalo, N. Y., & E. R. Co., 35 N. Y. 641; ante, pp. 412-416. 5 Warren v. K. & D. M. R. Co., 41 Iowa, 484. 6 Hurd v. Rutland & B. R. Co., 25 Vt. 116; Drake v. Phil. & E. R. Co., 51 Pa. St. 240. See Lawton v. Fitchburg R. Co., 8 Cush. 230. 7 White v. Concord R. Co., 30 N. H. 188; Cleveland, C. C., & I. R. Co. v. Crossley, 36 Ind. 370; Shepard v. Buffalo, N. Y., & E. R. Co., 35 N. Y. 641. inferred from a conveyance in fee-simple of a right of way to the company, without reservation or exception; or from the landowner's voluntary erection and maintenance of the fence; 2 or from his building it for the company under a contract. The company's written contract to build a fence with crossings does not relieve it of its statute duty to provide at such crossings gates or bars which were not mentioned in the contract. The company is not relieved of its duty to fence as imposed by statute, by the fact that the jury or appraising body allowed the land-owner compensation for fencing. Duty to fence assumed by the Company. The company having assumed by an agreement with the land-owner the obligation, although not imposed by statute, to maintain fences, gates, or cattle passes, cannot relieve itself therefrom by subsequent proceedings for taking land. It does not, by building a fence of its own accord, thereby agree to maintain it.7 Agreements to maintain Fences when running with the Land. Parol promises to maintain fences do not run with the land, and affect only the parties to them.8 But a written agreement, where the intent to charge the land appears, runs with it, and may be enforced by and against subsequent grantees.9 An agreement recited in a record of proceedings for condemnation, that the company is to maintain the fence, runs with the land.10 1 Smith v. New York & O. M. R. Co., 63 N. Y. 58. 2 Jeffersonville, M., & I. R. Co. v. Sullivan, 38 Ind. 262; Fort Wayne, M., & C. R. Co. v. Mussetter, 48 Ind. 286. See Jef. fersonville, M., & I. R. Co. v. Nichols, 30 Ind. 321. 3 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Swearingen, 33 Ill. 289, 47 Ill. 206. 7 Morss v. Boston & M. R., 2 Cush. 536; Waldron v. Portland, S., & P. R. Co., 35 Me. 422. 8 Morss v. Boston & M. R., 2 Cush. 536; Wilder v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 65 Me. 332; St. Louis, A., & T. H. R. Co. v. Todd, 36 Ill. 409; Vandegrift v. Delaware R. Co., 2 Houst. 287. See Pitkin v. Long Island R. Co., 2 Barb. Ch. 221; 4 Poler v. New York Cent. R. Co., 16 Day v. New York Cent. R. Co., 31 Barb. N. Y. 476. 6 Baltimore, P., & C. R. Co. v. Johnson, 59 Ind. 188. See Terre Haute & R. R. Co. v. Smith, 16 Ind. 102; Rockford, R. I., & St. L. R. Co. v. Lynch, 67 Ill. 149; Morss v. Boston & M. R., 2 Cush. 536. 548, 53 Barb. 250. 9 Easter v. Little Miami R. Co., 14 Ohio St. 48; Gill v. Atlantic & G. W. R. Co., 27 Ohio St. 240, 250; Cook v. Mil. & St. P. R. Co., 36 Wis. 45; Duffy v. New York & H. R. Co., 2 Hilton, 496; Bronson v. Coffin, 108 Mass. 175. See ante, Gray v. Burlington & M. R. Co., 37 Chap. VI. p. 135. Iowa, 119. 10 Huston v. Cincinnati & Z. R. Co., 21 Ohio St. 235. Remedy for Breach of the Agreement. Damages. The remedy for an injury resulting from a breach of the agreement to maintain a fence is an action of contract upon the agreement, and not an action of tort.1 - Different rules for the measure of damages for a breach of the agreement have been stated, as the cost of erecting the fence,2 the value of the crop destroyed in consequence of the failure to maintain them,3 or the injury to the use and enjoyment of the land.4 The damages suffered before the commencement of the action, and not prospective damages, may be recovered. The erection of fences by the company, after the action is brought, does not affect the plaintiff's right to recover." Plaintiff's Negligence. Where the company, not being in default under statutes in relation to the maintenance of fences, has, by the negligent management of its engines, injured cattle coming upon its track, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff will defeat the action.7 Such contributory negligence of the owner may consist in his allowing his cattle to stray in the vicinity of the railroad.8 Their escape from a well-fenced field, when involuntary on his part, and followed by reasonable efforts to reclaim them, is not negligence. Even if the company is in default, it is his duty to 1 Hurd v. Rutland & B. R. Co., 25 Vt. 116; Drake v. Phil. & E. R. Co., 51 Pa. St. 240; Vandergrift v. Delaware R. Co., 2 Houst. 287. See Fernow v. Dubuque & S. W. R. Co., 22 Iowa, 528. 2 Lawton v. Fitchburg R. Co., 8 Cush. 230. 3 Chicago & R. I. R. Co. v. Ward, 16 Ill. 522 (qualified by Chicago v. Huenerbein, 85 Ill. 594); Smith v. Chicago, C., & D. R. Co., 38 Iowa, 518. M. R. Co. v. Lull, 28 Mich. 510; Indianapolis & C. R. Co. v. Caldwell, 9 Ind. 397; Toledo & W. R. Co. v. Thomas, 18 Ind. 215; Jeffersonville, M., & I. R. Co. v. Foster, 63 Ind. 342. Indianapolis, C., & L. R. Co. v. Harter, 38 Ind. 557; Jeffersonville, M., & I. R. Co. v. Adams, 43 Ind. 402; Jeffersonville, M., & I. R. Co. v. Underhill, 48 Ind. 389, 40 Ind. 229; Cincinnati, H., & D. R. Co. v. Street, 50 Ind. 225; Detroit, E. R., 4 Huston v. Cincinnati & Z. R. Co., 21 & I. R. Co. v. Barton, 61 Ind. 293; Marsh Ohio St. 235. 5 Phelps v. New Haven & N. R. Co., 43 Conn. 453; Huston v. Cincinnati & Z. R. Co., 21 Ohio St. 235. 230. v. New York & E. R. Co., 14 Barb. 364; • Lawton v. Fitchburg R. Co., 8 Cush. I., & P. R. Co., 34 Iowa, 506; Kuhn v. 7 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Goodwin, 30 Ill. 117; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Eaves, 42 Ill. 288; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Goss, 17 Wis. 428; Fisher v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co., 21 Wis. 73; Curry v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 43 Wis. 665; Flint & P. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 42 Iowa, 420; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Harris, 54 Ill. 528; Toledo, P., & W. R. Co. v. use ordinary care to save his property from being injured thereby.1 2 Where the company is in default as to the maintenance of fences, and through such default cattle enter on its track at places where it has failed to maintain the fence, and are killed by its engines, the authorities are in conflict as to the effect of the owner's conduct upon his right of action. On the one hand, it has been held that he cannot recover if by his negligence he substantially contributed to the injury, as by turning his cattle into the unfenced field adjoining the railroad with knowledge of its condition; but, on the other, it has been considered that when the company has failed to perform its statute duty, and thereby injury has occurred, the owner's conduct will defeat his action only in the case of a positive act exposing his property, or negligence of a kind which shows a willingness to sacrifice it. According to this view he is not in such default as to disentitle him to maintain an action when the company having failed to perform its duty, he merely allows his cattle to stray in the vicinity of the railroad, or puts them into his field, between which and the track the company has failed to maintain a fence as required by statute.4 Where the owner and the company are under equal obligations Johnston, 74 Ill. 83; Peoria, P., & J. R. Co. v. Champ, 75 Ill. 577; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Goss, 17 Wis. 428; Bennett v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 19 Wis. 145, 148; Bulkley v. New York & N. H. R. Co., 27 Conn. 479; Pearson v. Mil. & St. P. R. Co., 45 Iowa, 497. 1 Downing v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 43 Iowa, 96; Finch v. Central R., 42 Iowa, 304; Smith v. Chicago, C., & D. R. Co., 38 Iowa, 518; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Finnigan, 21 Ill. 646. 2 Curry v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 43 Wis 665 (reviewing Jones v. Sheboygan & F. R. Co., 42 Wis. 306; Lawrence v. Mil., L. S., & W. R. Co., 42 Wis. 322); Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Lamborn, 12 Md. 257; Keech v. Balt. & W. R. Co., 17 Md. 32; Eames v. Salem & L. R. Co., 98 Mass. 560; Joliet & N. I. R. Co. v. Jones, 20 Ill. 221; Gribble v. Sioux City, 38 Iowa, 390. 3 Corwin v. New York & E. R. Co., 13 N. Y. 42, 49; Munch v. New York Cent. R. Co., 29 Barb. 647; Brady v. Rensselaer & S. R. Co., 1 Hun, 378, 3 Thomp. & C. 537; Flint & P. M. R. Co. v. Lull, 28 Mich. 510; Knight v. Toledo & W. R. Co., 24 Ind. 402; Jeffersonville, M., & I. R. Co. v. Dunlap, 29 Ind. 426; Bellefontaine R. Co. v. Reed, 33 Ind. 476; Jeffersonville, M., & I. R. Co. v. Ross, 37 Ind. 545; Louisville, N. A., & C. R. Co. v. Cahill, 63 Ind. 340; Louisville, N. A., & C. R. Co. v. Whitesell, 68 Ind. 297; St. Louis, A., & T. H. R. Co. v. Todd, 36 Ill. 409; Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. Furgusson, 42 Ill. 449; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Fowler, 85 Ill. 21. 4 Poler v. New York Cent. R. Co., 16 N. Y. 476; Shepard v. Buffalo, N. Y., & E. R. Co., 35 N. Y. 641; Rogers v. Newburyport R. Co., 1 Allen, 16; Wilder v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 65 Me. 332; McCoy v. Cal. Pacific R. Co., 40 Cal. 532; Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. Carey, 37 Ind. 172. |