Case ID: iowa_29/html/0243-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Beck, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Swift v. The North Missouri R. R. Co.
    Railroad: liability toe stock killed. A railroad company is Habla for stock killed upon its unfenced track, that have escaped there from the inclosure of the owner through which the road passes. FoHowing Hinman Y. The Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific R. R. Co., 28 Iowa, 491.
    
      Appeal from. Davis District Court.
    
    Tuesday, July 26.
    This cause was submitted to the district court upon an agreed statement of facts, which, so far as they are material to the points decided, are as follows, viz. : The railroad of defendant passed through a fenced field where plaintiff’s stock was running with the consent of the owner of the premises. There were sufficient cattle guards at the points where the road passed into and out of the field, but there were no fences along the road in the field. Two calves of plaintiffs were killed by the trains of defendant, without negligence or carelessness on the part of those operating the trains. The value of the calves is agreed upon at $14. Upon this state of facts the court found for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
    
      Perry <& Townsend for the appellant.
    
      Trimble & Oaruthers for the appellee.
   Beck, J.

The facts of this case are not materially different from, those in Hinman v. C. R. I. & P. Railway Co.., 28 Iowa, 491. In that case the railway track had been fenced through the field or inclosure where the stock. were killed, but the fence was destroyed or injured by fire, so that the stock escaped upon the road from the field. In this case the road never was fenced. The difference in facts cannot change the rule we recognized in that case. In fact, as the defendant has not attempted to fence the road, this appears to be even a stronger case of liability of the defendant than the other.

Following the ruling in that case, we hold that the judgment of the district court must be

Reversed.