The common-law rule exempting landowners from the obligation of fencing against animals, where it is in force and there is no special statute on the subject, applies to railroad companies as well as to individuals, and such a company is consequently entitled to recover for damage caused by animals trespassing on its grounds or track, and is not liable for injuries to such animals unless guilty of such negligence as would render it liable to any trespassers.90

24 Okla. 301, 103 Pac. 858; Carter v. Barnes, 87 S. C. 102. 68 S. E. 1054.

88. 12 Am. & Eng Enc. Law (2d Ed.) 1044; Westgate v. Carr, 43 111. 450; Williams v. .Michigan Cent. R. Co., 2 Mich. 260, 55 Am. Dec. 59; Kerwhaker v. Cleveland, C. & C. R. Co., 3 Ohio St 172, 62 Am. Dec. 246.

But occasionally a statute of this character has been regarded as not affecting the right of one to recover against the owner of adjacent enclosed land, whose cattle, by reason of the lack of a partition fence, trespasses upon the former's land. Montgomery v. Handy, 63 Miss 43; Blasdel v. Finks, 42 Okla. 91, 140 Pac. 1178; Allen v. Allen, 47 Utah 145, 151 Pac. 982; Kobayashi v. Strange-way, 64 Wash. 36, 116 Pac. 461.

89. See 1 Stimson'e Am. St. Law, Sec.Sec. 2182, 2190.

90. Fawcett v. York & N. M. Ry. Co., 16 Q B. 610; Louisville & F R. Cc v. Ballard, 2, Mete. (Ky.) 177; Eames v. Salem & L. R. Co, 98 Mass. 560. 96 Am. Dec. 676: Beasley v. New Orleans & N. E. R. Co, 91 Miss. 268, 45 So. 864; Vandergrift v. Rediker, 22 N. J. L. 185, 51 Am. Dec. 262; Munger

Real Property.

[Sec. 299

In those states where the common-law rule is not in force, 'the owners of cattle, except as otherwise prescribed by statute, are not bound to keep them in, and railroad companies are not bound to keep them out.91 The owner of the cattle is, accordingly, not liable for damage to the railroad by reason of their trespass, thereon, and he may recover for injuries to them caused by the failure of the company to use ordinary care 92

In England and in many states in this country, there is a. statutory regulation requiring all railroad tracks to be fenced.93 In some jurisdictions these statutes either expressly or by implication impose a duty on the railroad company for the benefit of the adjoining landowner only,94 or of the person using adjoining land95 while in others they are regarded as for the benefit of the public generally, and as giving a right of action to any person injured by their violation.96 v. Tonawanca R. Co., 4 N. Y. 349; Davis Bros. & Burke v. Le Flore, 26 Okla. 729, 110 Pac. 782; Stucke v. Milwaukee & M. R. Co , 9 Wis. 202; Martin v. Chicago. B. & Q. R. Co., 15 Wyo. 493, 89 Pac. . 1025.

91. 2 Shearman & Redfield Negligence, Sec. 419.

92. Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Williams, 53 Ala. 593; Pr'ckett v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 33 Kan. 748, 7 Pac. 61l; New Orleans, J. & G. N. R. Co. v. Field, 46 Miss. 573; Hill v Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 49 Mo. App. 520, 121 Mo. 477, 26 S. W. 576; Kerwhaker v. Cleveland, C. & C. R. Co., 3 Ohio St. 172, 62 Am. Dec. 246; Moses v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 18 Ore. 385, 8 L. R. A. 135, 23 Pac. 498; Layne . v. Ohio. River R. Co., 35

W. Va. 438, 14 S. E. 123.

93. 2 Shearman & Redfield, Negligence, Sec. 421 el seg.; 12 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 1063.

94. Ricketts v. East & West India, D. & B. J. Ry. Co., 12 C. B. 160; Maynard v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 40 W. Va. 331, 21 S. E. 733; Cornwall v. Sullivan R. Co., 28 N. H. 161; Allen v. Boston & Maine R. R., 87 Me. 326; Jackson v. Rutland & B. R. Co., 25 Vt. 150, 60 Am. Dec. 246; Eames v. Salem & L. R. Co., 98 Mass. 560, 96 Am. Dec. 676.

95. Dawson v. Midland, R. Co.. L. R. 8 Exch. 8; McCoy v. So. Pac. R. Co., 94 Cal. 568, 26 Pac. 629; Smith v. Barre R. Co., 64, Vt. 21, 23 Atl. 632.

96. Warren v. Keokuk & D. M. R. Co., 41 Iowa, 484; Jeffer-sonville, M. & I. R. Co. v. Nichols.

IX. Land Under Water.