Fence

A line of obstacle, composed of any material that will present the desired obstruction.* Partition fence. As contemplated in a statute, a fence on the line between two proprietors, where there is no road, alley, or other thing which would prevent the erection of such a fence. 5 See Wall. Fences are regulated by local laws. Boundaiy fences are to be built on the line, and, when made as intended by law,. the cost is "borne equally between the parties. A partition fence is presumed to be the common property of both owners.^ In some States, steam railway companies are required by statute to protect their tracks by fences. Failure to comply with its contract to fence renders a company liable fqr injuries to children and animals, consequent thereon.' A statute requiring a railroad to maintain fences and cattle-guards on the sides of its road,, and, if it does not, making it liable in double the amount of 1 Black V. Tricker, 59 Pa. 13, 16 (1868), Thompson, C. J.; 2 S. & E. 189; 6 W. & S. 846; 14 W. N. C. 191. s MoDowall V. Wood, 2 N. & Mo. 'aiS (S. C, 1820); Newbiggin v. Pillans, 3 Bay, 165 (S. C, 1798); ib. 113. » Taylor v. Meads, 34 L. J. Ch. 207 (1865); 21 Cent. Law J. 47-49 (1885), cases; 24 Am. Law Reg. 353-68, 659- 62 (1885), cases; 1 Story, Eq. §243; 3 Kent, 150. < [Allen V. Tobias, 77 lU. 171 (1875), Bi-eese, J. * Hewit V. Jewell, 59 Iowa, 33 (1882), Seevers, C. J.: Iowa Code, § 1495; 58 Iowa, 356; Jacobs v. Moseley, 91 Mo. 462 (1886). » See 15 Conn. 526; BO Iowa, 237^ 59 id. 38; 2 Me. 72; 11 Mass. 294; 2 Mete, Mass., 180; 28 Mo. 6B6; 12 Mo. Ap. 5,58; 3 Wend. 142; 82 Pa. 65; 2 Greenl. Ev. § 617; 2 Washb. E. P. 79; 3 Kent, 436. ' See Hayes v. Michigan Central E. Co., Ill U. S. 228" (1834); 50 Conn. 128; 62 Ga. 679; 68 Ind. 297; 22 Kan. 359; 63 Me. 308: 24 Minn. 394; 25 id. 328; 31 Miss. 157; damages occasioned thereby to animals, does not deprive it of its property witliout due process of law or deny it the equal protection of the laws. The additional damages are by way of punishment for negligence; and the sufferer may receive them, rather than the State.' In California, fences erected upon the line between the roadway of a railroad and the land of coterminous properties are not part of the "roadway" to be included by the State board in its valu^,tion of the property of the corporation, but are ''improvements" assessable by the local authorities of the proper county. 3 At common law, the owner of land was not bound to fence it. In Massachusetts, prior to the statute of 1841, u. 125, there was no provision for fences along railroads, and the common law as to the owners and occupiers of adjoining lands applied. Neither had a right to trespass, himself or by his servants or cattle, on the laud of the other, and neither could require the other to prevent trespasses by maintaining a fence.' ' Constructing a barbed-wire fence along a highway is not in itself an actionable wrong, in the absence of statutory inhibition, although animals may attempt to enter the enclosure. If the land owner keeps in good order such fences as are usually built, there is no liability for injury to animals. He is not bound to use boards in constructing a wire fence. But he must not let a fence of any kind become a trap for passing animals, which may be allured from the road to the inadequately fenced enclosure, by the presence of other animals or by the sight of pasture.* See Appendage; Close, 3; Enclosuke; Obstruct, 1; TlUBER.