FENCE. A building or erection between two contiguous estates, so as to divide them, or on the same estate, so as to divide one part from another. It may be of any mate rial presenting a sufficient obstruction ; Allen v. Tobias, 77 111. 169; and has been held to include a gate; Estes v. R. Co., 63 Me. 308. See 19 Can. L. J. 204.
Fences are regulated by local laws. At common law a landowner is not bound to fence against cattle; Collins v. Lundquist, 154 Mich. 658, 118 N. W. 596; Wood v. Sni der, 187 N. Y. 28, 79 N. E. 858, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 912. In general fences on boundaries are to be built on the line, and the cost, when made no more expensively than is required by law, is borne equally between the parties ; Norris v. Adams, 2 Miles (Pa.) 337; White v. Snyder, id. 395; Heath v. Ricker, 2 Green'. (Me.) 72 ; Burrell v. Burrell, 11 Mass. 294; Holladay v. Marsh, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 142, 20 Am. Dec. 678; Sharp v. Curtiss, 15 Conn. 526 ; Peschongs v. Mueller, 50 Ia. 237. For modifications of the rule, see Palmer v. Sil verthorn, 32 Pa. 65 ; Climer v. Wallace, 28 Mo. 556, 75 Am. Dec. 135. One adjoining land-owner can compel another to contribute to the expense of maintaining a partition fence only when the fence completes an in closure which contains no other lands than those of the latter ; Kingman v. Williams, 50 Ohio St. 722, 36 N. E. 667; Alma Coal Co. v. Cozad, 79 Ohio St. 348, 87 N. E. 172, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1092; Bouchereau v. Guilne, 116 La. 534, 40 South. 863. A partition fence is presumed to be the common property of both owners of the land; 8 B. & C. 257; McCor mick v. Tate, 20 III. 334 ; Boenig v. Horn berg, 24 Minn. 307. When built upon the land of one of them it is his; but if it were built equally upon the land of both, at joint expense, each would be the owner in severalty of the part standing on his own land ; 5 Taunt 20 ; 2 Greenl. Ey. § 617. See 2 Washb. R. P. 79.
It was held in Barger v. Barringer, 151 N. C. 433, 66 S. E. 439, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 831, 19 Ann. Cas. 472, and note, that maliciously to erect a fence on one's property to cut off light and air from his neighbor's property is ac tionable. The opinion of the court and a dis senting opinion discuss the subject on both sides very fully, the latter taking the ground that "malice disconnected with the infringe ment of a legal right is not actionable."
The same rule was laid down in Peek v. Roe, 110 Mich. 52, 67 N. W. 1080 ; and in Burke v. Smith, 69 Mich. 380, 37 N. W. 838, Campbell, J., dissenting. The contrary rule was sustained in Koblegard v. Hale, 60 W. Va. 37, 53 S. E. 793, 116 Am. St Rep. 868, 9 Ann. Cas. 732 ; Giller v. West, 162 Ind. 17, 69 N. E. 548. The subject is regulated by statute in some states. See Horan v. Byrnes, 72 N. H. 93, 54 Atl. 945, 62 L. R. A. 602, 101 Am. St. Rep. 670 ; Healey v. Spaulding, 104 Me.• 122, 71 Atl. 472 ; Lord v. Langdon, 91 Me. 221, 39 Atl. 552 ; Scott v. Wilson, 82 Conn. 289, 73 Atl. 781; Brostrom v. Lauppe, 179 Mass. 315, 60 N. E. 785 ; Rideout v. Knox, 148 Mass. 368, 19 N. E. 390, 2 L. R. A. 81, 12 Am. St. Rep. 560; Smith v. Morse, 148 Mass. 407, 19 N. E. 393. Under such statutes "malev olence must be the dominant motive" ; Bar ger v. Barringer, 151 N. C. 433, 66 S. E. 439, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 831, 19 Ann. Cas. 472.
A class of cases has arisen, in this coun try, regarding the responsibility of railroad companies for protecting their tracks by fenc es. In some cases they are required by stat ute to do so, but unless so required they are not under any obligation to do so, having no other duty than other land-owners ; 3 Wood, R. R. 1843 ; Carper v. Receivers of Norfolk & W. R. Co., 78 Fed. 94, 23 C. C. A. 669, 35 L. R. A. 135. A railroad company, when not re quired by law to fence its tracks, in doing so only exercises extraordinary diligence to pre vent danger to cattle, and is not liable if it fails to maintain such fence ; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Woodworth, 1 Ind. T. 20, 35 S. W. 238. When the company is required by statute to fence its track, it is only bound to the exercise of reasonable care in main taining a ; Coe v. R. Co., 101 Minn. 12, 111 N. W. 651, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 228; 11 Ann. Cas. 429 ; Case v. R. Co., 75 Mo. 670 ; Hen drickson v. R. Co., 68 N. J. L. 612, 54 Atl. 831; a failure renders it liable to an em ploye for an injury caused thereby ; Atchi son, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Reesman, 60 Fed. 370, 9 C. C. A. 20, 23 L. R. A. 768 ; and see 25 L. R. A. 320, note.