The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1913-11-27
COURT GIVES QUEER RULING.
Exact Language of Chicken Decision
Published in Full.

Inc 1OllOWlnS is the llHulnS VI Iho
Supreme Court in the celebrated
Chicken case of l.. Kimple VS.. Phil
and Myrtle Shaffer, appealed from
the Wayne County District Court:
The following is the official opinion
of the Supreme Court which we
think is sufficiently interesting to
publish:
plaintiff and defendants own
and occupy adjoining farms separ-
ated only by public highway. De-
PENDANTS dwelling house and I'M
mediately east and across the road
is plaintiffs land and in the year
1911 he had sown a part OF 1T Ill
oats. At that time, defendants kept
a large number (something like two
hundred) chickens about their yards
and premises and these were permit
ted to run at large not only upon
their own land, but also upon the
public highway Plaintiff alleges, and
the testimony tends to show, that
quite a number of these fowls went
upon plaintiffs land which he had
seeded to oats and ate large amount
of the seed which plaintiff had plant
ed. to such an extent as to cause MIN
to resow a part Of the land; not only
once but twice and thrice. he also
alleged that Notwithstanding his crop
was deficient and badly injured. He
further averred that he requested de-
PENDANTS to restrain their chickens
and keep them off his land, but that
they refused to do so and stated that
they did not intend to make any Ell
forts in that direction. He brought
this action for mandatory injunc-
ton to compel defendants to restrain
and keep their fowls from trespass-
ing upon his land.
After a trial upon the merits, the
lower court granted the relief asked,
permanently enjoining defendants or
any chickens or poultry owned or
controlled by them from going on
plaintiffs premises. Defendants ap-
peal from this decree.
This appeal involves the duties OF
an owner of, what Milton styles, the
tame, villatic fowl" or in common
parlance, the Iowa hen Plaintiff
says the owner must clip and keep
her upon his own domain; and, that
she has no right to take even her
daily dust bath upon the country
highway, or to stubbornly cross the
road in front of rapidly approach
ing vehicle. On the other hand de-
PENDANTS say that outside OF cities
and towns, chickens are free COM
moners and that an owner OF i'm
proved or cultivated land must fence
against them. They also assert that
plaintiff has no remedy, because his
land is not enclosed by a lawful
fence and for the further reason that
it he has a remedy, it is to impound
the trespassing animals, or to sue at
law for the damages done and that
in no event is plaintiff entitled to any
relief because his hands are foul in
that he, too, owns chickens which he
permits to roam at will. The ques-
tions thus presented are really SER
ious in character, for the poultry in
dustry is, an important one in this
state and it is of vital Importance to
know whether the owner must re-
strain his fowls, or an adjoining own
er of improved and cultivated land
must fence against them.
Whatever the decision, some hard
ship must result; and it is well, per-
haps, that the question is presented
at this time in order that the law
may be settled. Strange as it may
seem there appears to be no de-
cision exactly in point. The near
est approach to it is our own case of
Kell vs.. Wright, 1876 Iowa, 1888. The
diligent annOtators of that series OF
selected cases found no other upon
the proposition involved. The case
is also reported in IA Am. & Eng. An
notated cases, $40, but the indus
trious editors of that series found
nothing heretofore reported directly
in point. Upon one proposition the
case is important and decisive OF one
OF the questions raised on this appeal.
1t sQua rely decides that permanent
Injunction will lie to restrain domest-
ic animals from tresspassing upon
the land of another.
This rule of common law, requir-
ing an owner to keep and restrain
domestic animals upon his own
premises, has been held inapplica-
BILE to the habits and conditions OF
she people in many of our states,
especially western and mid die west
ern ones.
At very early day we adopted
this rule and it has been adhered to
ever since, save as the legislature
has made provision to the contrary.
The legislature has authority to
change this rule and it has done SO
in this state as to many kinds OF
domestic animals; but as to chickens,
the only provisions we find in the
statutes, is one giving to cities and
towns the right to restrain and regu-
late the running at large of swine,
sheep and fowls within the limits OF
q corporation and authorizing the
restraint and impounding thereof.
See Code, Section 7O6.
The other provisions found in
Chapter of Title - of the Code
have no reference to poultry. Sec
tion 2311, in giving a definition it
means those unlawfully upon land or
running at large, contrary to law or
police regulations. BY no stretch of
the imagination may any of the sec
tions found in this chapter be held
to refer to chickens. These provis-
ions of the Code are significant in
that the only attempt made by the
legislature to regulate the running at
large of poultry, turkeys, chickens,
ducks, geese, guinea hens or other
fnWls coming under that designation