Southern standard. (McMinnville, Tenn.) 1879-current, 1884-08-30


latter also owned any, he must do the
same, or keep his beasts at home in
some other way. This was the law in
Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, New
Hamshire, New York, Maryland, Min.
nesota, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylva,
MIA; while Connecticut, Ohio, Iowa,
Kansas, West Virginia, California, and
some others, adopt the other rule,
that the man who cultivates his
land must keep other peoples cattle
off. And statutes sometimes so de-
clare.
But two parallel fences would be at
tended with useless expense; and, as
one and the same fence would answer
for two adjoining proprietors, it was
long ago provided by statute law, in
many States, that adjoining owners of
improved lands should maintain parti-
ton fences in equal shares and if they
did not agree how the fence should be
divided, either might apply to the
fence viewers, elected by the town
every year, to decide which part each
proprietor should keep up. And if,
after such decision, either party refused
or neglected to build or keep in repair
his portion, the other could do so, and
recover the expenses Gin Maine double
the eXpenses) of the delinquent owner
by suit at law. 1t follows, therefore,
that if my adjoining owner does not
keep up his half Of the fence, and my
cattle get through and injure his crops,
he has no redress against me, since his
own neglect was, in part at least, the
cause of his injury. But now comes
in very important addition to this
rule; and this is, if my cattle stray be-
yond the Immediately adjoining land,
into the farm of third person, and
Injuries his crops, | am liable for the
damage to him, although my own half
of my fence is good, and my animals
escaped through my immediate neigh
boris defective fence because, as to all
persons except my nearest neighbor,
| am still bound to keep my cattle on
my own land and it is no excuse for
me, so far as third persons are con-
cerned, that my neighbor neglected his
half OF our division fence. Whether
my neighbor would be liable to refund
to me what | had to pay to such dis.
tant owner, isnot yet settled but it is
established that the latter could not
himself sue the negligent land owner,
but only the owner of the cat
tie. Nay, so far is this rule car
ried, that although such third person
did not keep up his own fence, and the
cattle 60 into his land through his own
fault, he can still make me pay the
damages because he is not bound in
law to keep up any fence at all, except
as against his nearest neighbor, and not
against my cattle further off. In other
words, if A, B and G own three ad-
joining lots, and AS cattle stray into
BIS land through BIS neglect, he has
no remedy against A; but if they stray
still further on. to the land of G also,
and there do mischief, G has a claim
for the damages against A, even
though the animals went through his
own broken-down fence. A man must
keep his animals at home at his own
peril. So if your vicious bull escapes
from your pasture, solely through a
defect IN the fence, which your neighS
Dor was bound to keep up, and after
roaming over his lot, finds his way in.
to other lands, still further away, and
there Injuries man or beast, you are re-.
sponsible, though you did not know
the fence was down.
For similar reasons, if A turns his
cattle into the highway, and they come
on to your land from the road, either
because your front fence is defective
or altogether gone, you have a remedy
against A for all the damages you sus.
tain for you are not obliged to have
any fence on the road, except to keep
your own cattle at home. And so
stringent is this rule, that if other peo-
pie, in roaming over your grounds,