Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-299-Railroad-fences.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 00:10:15+00:00

Document:
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.
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.
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.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.