Bowles v. Prentice

• Decision Date: 05 January 1915
• Docket Number: No. 13559.,13559.
• Parties: BOWLES v. PRENTICE.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

172 S.W. 429

BOWLES v. PRENTICE.

No. 13559.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 5, 1915.

ANIMALS (§ 92) — STOCK LAW — FENCES — LIABILITY.

Under Rev. St. 1909, § 772, providing that the owner of domestic animals shall not permit them to run at large outside his inclosure, and shall be liable for all trespasses of such animals, the owner of cattle is liable for damages resulting from their trespass on the land of an adjoining proprietor which was separated by a stream, though there was no common fence between them; landowners under the statute being entitled to allow their fields to go unfenced and recover damages occasioned by stock running at large.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lewis County; Charles D. Stewart, Judge.

Action by Lee L. Bowles against William H. Prentice. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

F. H. McCullough, of Edina, and J. L. Brightwell, of Lewiston, for appellant. Hilbert & Henderson, of Monticello, and A. F. Haney, of Canton, for respondent.

NORTONI, J.

This is a suit for damages accrued to plaintiff because of defendant's cattle trespassing upon his premises. Plaintiff recovered, and defendant prosecutes the appeal.

It appears that the stock law — that is, section 772, R. S. 1909 — restraining animals from running at large, is in force in Lewis county, and the suit proceeds thereunder. Plaintiff and defendant own and reside upon adjoining farms in Lewis county. The two places are separated by the Little Fabius river; that is to say, the plaintiff's farm, consisting of 40 acres, lies east and north of the Little Fabius river, while the farm of defendant is on the opposite side of the stream. It is said the river marks the line between them. The evidence is that no division or partition fence is maintained by the parties between their farms, and, indeed, no such fence was ever established or maintained. Moreover, the parties do not adjoin fences at any point. Touching this matter, the evidence is:

"Q. On direct examination I believe you said that Mr. Prentice's fence does not adjoin you anywhere? A. It does not."

As before said, the Little Fabius river marks the line between the two farms, and plaintiff maintained no fence whatever. But defendant maintained a wire fence on his side of the river upon his own land. It appears defendant's cattle, at pasture within his inclosure on the opposite side of the river, escaped therefrom by some means and trespassed upon plaintiff's fields so as to destroy his corn and other...