The Washburn leader. [volume] (Washburn, McLean County, N.D.) 1890-1986, 1903-11-14
STOCK AT LARGE
Stock Gan Run lat Large in
the Country from Dec.
First to April fret
SUPREME COURTS OPINION.
II Much Discussed Subject
Suitably Handled

The approach of winter months
in which stock is allowed to run at
large brings up the question of the
liability of the owner for the dam
age and injury committed by his
cattle, and stockmen are especially
interested in the matter are making
many inquiries about the changes
made in the law by the last leg1s-
lature. The last legislature made
no change whatever in this law,
and the act passed by the preced-
ing legislature still stands. This
is the law of 1901, and the Supreme
Court of the state has not as yet
interpreted it. However, the 1901
law is construed generally by at
torneys to be Identical with the law
of 1899, excepting the 1899 law al
lows stock to run at large from Nov.
first until April first, while the 1901
law reads from December first to
April first"
In a decision handed down Jan.
10, 1908, in the case of Ely vs..
Rosholt, an action based on the
1899 law, the Supreme Court says:
"The destruction of respondents
property, complained of in this
case, was accomplished in the month
of February, 1901, (which was be-
| fore the 1901 law took effect, when
horses were permitted to run
at large. The damage was not
effected through any willful act of
the appellant. It is clearly the
purpose of the law to require the
owner or person in charge or pos
session of horses, mules, cattle,
goats, sheep and like animals, to
restrain them from running at large
excepting during the winter months
between Nov. and April l, when
the annual crops have been gath
cred and when, under ordinary con-
ditions as they here exist, emble-
ments and accretions of the soil
have been housed, marketed or
stalked within enclosures sufficient
to turn stock, and that during the
winter months the advantages to
the stock owners of being permitted
to let their stock run at large over
balances the disadvantages to
minor part of the community in
being required to protect haystacks
against ranging horses, mules, cat
tie and sheep. As to this class of
legislation, other states have been
controlled by the same legislation,
viz, the requirements of local con-
ditions. It is equally clear that if
livestock is permitted to run at
large during the portion of the
year, the action is not maintainble
by land owners for injury to their
personal property thereon by rang
ing stock at such times when the
ordinary precautions which COM
mon prudence would dictate, have.
not been taken to protect such
property from destruction. Apply
ing the rule to the facts of the case,
respondents negligence in leaving
his hay out upon an enclosure field
and without any stock guard around
the stack, during season of the
year when stock was permitted to
run at lerge, was the direct cause
of his loss.
""When the legislative depart
ment of the state declared that do
nestle animals Of the kind enum-
Grated in the statute, might run at
large during the winter months, it
relieved the owner Of such animals
from any imputation Of negligence
in not restraining such stock within
an enclosure during these months;
and such owner does no wrong by
allowing them to 60 uncon6ned,
and is not responsible to his neigh
bor for their acts,,i for want Of