Court Opinion

ID: 9809766
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:26:00.765519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:13:06.486421
License: Public Domain

Walker, J.,
concurring: I concur in all that is decided by the opinion of the Court. I do not assent to the proposition that the “no-fence law” has any application to the case. It was intended to fence in cattle, it is true, and not to fence them out, but it still leaves it optional with the owner of land whether he will fence his premises for their protection or other purposes than barring out straying cattle, and does not increase his responsibility for doing so. There are other roving animals than cattle, and he has the right to keep them out and to erect fences for privacy, or for ornamentation, as much so as he may plant trees for that purpose or erect structures for his comfort and convenience.
BeowN, J., concurs in this opinion.