A statutory requirement to fence railroad tracks "to prevent the entrance of cattle upon the road" imposes no duty except as to ad joining owners ; Byrnes v. R. Co., 181 Mass. 322, 63 N. E. 897. In New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. v. Price, 159 Fed. 330, 86 C. C. A. 502, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1103, it was held (follow ing the last cited case) that in the absence of legislation there is no legal duty imposed on , a railroad company to safeguard chil dren trespassing on its land ; and to the same effect, Nolan v. R. Co., 53 Conn. 461, 4 Atl. 106 ; Western & A. R. Co. v. Rogers, 104 Ga. 224, 30 S. E. 804 ; Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Liidtke, 69 Ohio St 384, 69 N. E. 653 ; McCabe v. Woolen Co., 124 Fed. 287. That such a statute is for the protection of persons as well as live stock is held in some jurisdic tions; Rosse v. Ry. Co., 68 Minn. 216, 71 N. W. 20, 37 L. R. A. 591, 64 Am. St. Rep. 472; Nickolson v. Ry. Co., 80 Minn. 508, 83 N. W. 454, where it is said, as the duty to fence is absolute, a violation of such duty is evidence of negligence ; Hayes v. R. Co., 111 U. S. 228, 4 Sup. Ct. 369, 28 L. Ed. 410.
That a landowner must fence his land, if he has reason to think that children may tres pass thereon and be injured, is not an estab lished rule of general law to be applied by federal courts, or at the discretion of a jury in such courts, even when sitting in a district where such rule of law prevails ; New York Cent & H. R. R. Co. v. Price, 159 Fed. 330, 86 C. C. A. 502, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1103.
The Virginia fence act was held to impose a duty only to the owners of stock and not to the railroad's employes ; and the violation of the act was held no ground of recovery for the death of an employe, killed by the derail ing of his train by cattle which came upon the track at a place where the right of way was not fenced. Carper v. R. Co., 78 Fed. 94, 23 C. C. A. 669, 35 L. R. A. 135. The court distinguished the cases of Briggs v. Ry. Co., 111 Mo. 173, 20 S. W. 32 ; Dickson v. R. Co., 124 Mo. 140, 27 S. W. 476, 25 L. R. A. 320, 46 Am. St. Rep. 429 ; Donegan v. Erhardt, .119 N. Y. 468, 23 N. E. 1051, 7 L. R. A. 527, as arising under a special statute.
Mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the performance of the statutory duty ; 12 L. R. A. 180, note.
The power of the states to require such fencing by statute is fully sustained ; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Rowland, 70 Tex. 298, 7 S. W. 718 ; 35 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 286 ; and the extent and manner of it are within the legislative discretion ; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Dumser, 109 El. 402 ; such stat utes are valid under the police power ; Chi cago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Dumser, 109 Ill.
402 ; Peoria, D. & E. Ry. Co. v. Duggan, 109 Ill. 537, 50 Am. Rep. 619 ; Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. City of Chicago, 140 Ill. 309, 29 N. E. 1109 ; Emmons v. Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 503, 29 N. W. 202 ; Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Mower, 16 Kan. 573 ; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Riblet, [ 66 Pa. 164, 5 Am. Rep. 360 ; Gorman v. R. R., 26 Mo. 441, 72 Am. Dec. 220 ; (a leading case collecting authorities and approving Thorpe v. R. 'Co., 27 Vt. 141, 62 Am. Dec. 625;), and are not unconstitutional as imposing expense on one for the sole benefit of another ; Bar nett v. R. Co., 68 Mo. 56, 30 Am. Rep. 773.
As a means of compelling railroads to fence their tracks statutes have been enacted in many states making them absolutely lia ble in damages for killing stock, by analogy to the similar statutes respecting damage by fires from locomotives (q. v.); but such stat utes have generally been construed to require only that railroad companies should use rea sonable care ; Antisdel v. Ry. Co., 26 Wis. 145, 7 Am. Rep. 44 ; Murray v. R. Co., 3 Abb. App. Dec. (N. Y.) 339 ; Coe v. Ry. Co., 101 Minn. 12, 111 N. W. 651, 11 L. It A. (N. S.) 228, 11 Ann. Cas. 429 ; Zeigler v. R. R. Co., 58 Ala. 594; Jensen v. Ry. Co., 6 Utah 253, 21 Pan. 994, 4 L. R. A. 724 ; Bielenberg v. Ry. Co., 8 Mont. 271, 20 Pac. 314, 2 L. R. A. 813 ; Thompson v. R. Co., 8 Mont. '279, 21 Pac. 25; State v. Divine, 98 N. C. 778, 4 S. E. 477; Wadsworth v. Ry. Co., 18 Colo. 600, 33 Pac. 515, 23 L. R. A. 812, 36 Am. St. Rep. 309 ; Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Mower, 16 Kan. 573 ; Oregon Ry. & Nay. Co. v. Smalley, 1 Wash. 206, 23 Pac. 1008, 22 Am. St. Rep. 143, 25 L. R. A. 320, note.
In some states the common law requiring the owner of cattle to keep them within a sufficient enclosure is held not to be in force ; Buford v. Houtz, 133 U. S. 320, 10 Sup. CL 305, 33 L. Ed. 618 ; and in such case a rail road company, while not required to fence, and fully authorized to transact its lawful business on its track, must exercise reason able care to avoid injuring cattle which have wandered on their premises, and is liable for accidents which by ordinary care could have been prevented ; New Orleans, J. & G. N. R. Co. v. Field, 46 Miss. 573 ; Alabama G. S. Ry. Co. V. McAlpine, 71 Ala. 545 ; Isbell v. R. Co., 27 Conn. 393, 71 Am. Dec. 78; Western Mary land R. Co. v. Carter, 59 Md. 306; Trow v. R. Co., 24 Vt. 487, 58 Am. Dec. 191; Donovan v. R. Co., 89 Mo. 147, 1 S. W. 232. Where it is the duty of the company, arising out of the contract, to fence its track, a failure to comply with the terms of such contract ren ders the company liable for all injuries to animals consequent thereon. See DEPOT