the case of a child injured by the careless management of a railway train, is, that if the child would have escaped injury by the exercise of such diligence as might reasonably be expected from a person of its age and intelligence, the company is not liable.10 The caution required is according to the maturity and capacity of the child, and this is to be determined by the circumstances of each partic ular case. If the owner of cattle or other live stock permits them to range in proximity to passing trains, and to wander on the uninclosed track of a railroad, he takes the risk of their loss or injury by unavoidable accident. 12 And if he permits them to go at large in a city, where a railroad is not required to be fenced, it is such negligence on his part as will prevent a recovery by him for cattle killed by the trains of the company at such place, 13 unless the injury was willful.14 But the owner of stock killed by a railway company is not chargeable with contributory negligence in letting it run at large, if it breaks out of the pasture without his fault. 15

1 Central etc. R. R. Co. v. Dixon, 42 Ga. 327; Robinson v. Western Pacif. R. R. Co. 48 Cal. 409; Railroad Co. v. Houston, 95 U. S. 697; Maker v. Atlantic ete. R. R. Co. 64 Mo. 267; Toledo etc. R. R. Co. v. Shuckman, 50 Ind. 42; Paducah etc. R. R. Co. r. Hoehl, 12 Bush, 41; Rockford etc. R. R. Co. v. Byam, 80 Ill. 523; Weiss v. Penn'a R. R. Co. 75 Pa. St. 387; McCall v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 54 N. Y. 642.

2 Hoyt v. Hudson, 41 Wis. 105; 22 Am. R. 714; Thompson v. North Mo. R. R. Co. 51 Mo. 190; 11 Am. R. 445; Railroad Co. r. Gladman, 15 Wall. 401; and see Stackus v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 79 N. Y. 464.

3 Brown v. Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co. 22 Minn. 165.

4 See Pendleton etc. R. R. Co. r. Stallman, 22 Ohio St. 1; Warner v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co. 44 N. Y. 465; Dickey v. Maine Tel. Co. 43 Me. 492; Murphy e. Deane, 101 Mass. 455; 3 Am. R. 30; Mich. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Coleman, 23 Mich. 440.

5 Flynn r. San Francisco etc. R. R. Co. 40 Cal. 14; 6 Am. R. 595; Maumus r. Champion, 40 Cal. 121; and see Button v. Hudson River R. R. Co. 18 N. Y. 24; Beers v. Housatonic R. R. Co. 1 Conn. 566; Isbell v. N. Y. etc. R. K. Co. 27 id, 3.8; Kerwhacker r. Railroad Co. 3 Ohio St. 172; Davies e. Mann. 10 Mees. & W. 546; Fernandes e. Sacramento City Railw. Co. 52 Cal. 45.

6 Manly r. Wilmington etc. R. R. Co. 74 No. Car. 655; Miss. etc. R. R. Co. v. Mason. 51 Miss. 234; Walsh v. Miss. Valley Transp. Co. 52 Mo. 434; Cleveland etc. R. R. Co. r. Eliott, 28 Ohio St. 340; Needham v. San Francisco etc. R. R. Co. 37 Cal. 409; Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. v. Mulligan, 45 Md. 486. Compare Cook v. Ñ. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 1 Abb. N. Y. App. 482.

7 Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Poudrom, 51 Ill. 333; 2 Am R. 306; Rock

ford etc. R. R. Co. v. Delaney, 82 Ill. 198; 25 Am. R. 308; Chicago etc. Railw. Co. v. Clark, 70 Ill. 276; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Hatch, 79 id. 137; and see Railroad Co. v. Carroll, 6 Heisk. 347; Pacific R. R. Co. v. Houts, 12 Kan. 328; Lafayette etc. R. R. Co. v. Adams, 26 Ind. 76.

8 See Webster v. Hudson River R. R. Co. 38 N. Y. 260; Sauter v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 66 N. Y. 50; 23 Am. R. 18; Schmidt v. Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co. 23 Wis. 186; Wright v. Malden etc. R. R. Co. 4 Allen, 283; Balt. etc. R. R. Co. v. State, 30 Md. 47; Keefe v. Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co. 21 Minn. 207; 18 Am. R. 393; McGarry v. Loomis, 63 N. Y. 104; 20 Am. R. 510; Waite v. Northeastern Railw. Co. El. B. & E. 719; Burrows v. March Gas Co. Law R. 5 Ex. 67.

9 Webster v. Hudson River R. R. Co. 38 N. Y. 260.

10 Reynolds v. N. Y. Cent. etc. R. R. Co. 2 Thomp. & C. 644; Ken. yon v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co. 5 Hun, 479; Costello v. Syracuse etc. R. R. Co. 65 Barb. 92; Rockford etc. R. R. Co. v. Delaney, 82 Ill. 198; Balt. etc. R. R. Co. v. Breinig, 25 Md. 378; Nagle v. Allegheny Valley R. R. Co. 88 Pa. St. 35; 32 Am. R. 413.

11 Railroad Co. v. Gladman, 15 Wall, 401; and see North Penn'a R. R. Co. r. Mahoney, 57 Pa. St. 187; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Beaker, 76 Ill. 25; Reynolds v. N. Y. Cent. R. K. Co. 58 N. Y. 248; Casey v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 8 Daly, 220.

12 Raiford v. Miss. R. R. Co. 43 Miss. 233; Locke v. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co. 15 Minn. 350; Eames v. Salem etc. R. R. Co. 98 Mass. 560. Compare Rockford etc. R. R. Co. v. Irish, 72 Ill. 404; Georgia etc. R. R. Co. v. Neely, 56 Ga. 540; McPheeters v. Hannibal etc. R. R. Co. 45 Mo. 22; Jeffersonville etc. R. R. Co. v. Adams, 43 Ind. 402.

13 Peoria etc. R. R. Co. v. Barton, 80 Ill. 72; Brady r. Rensselaer etc. R. R. Co. 1 Hun, 378; 3 Thomp. & C. 537; Jeffersonville etc. R. R. Co. v. Huber, 42 Ind. 173.

14 Jeffersonville etc. R. R. Co. v. Underhill, 48 Ind. 389; and see $253, ante.

15 See Pacific R. R. Co. v. Brown, 14 Kan. 469; Toledo etc. R. R. Co. v. Johnston, 74 Ill. 83; Sheaf v. Utica etc. R. R. Co. 2 Thomp. & C. 388.

§ 263. Associated companies. A railway company with ordinary powers is presumably liable only for its own line for passengers or freight received to be transported over that and connecting lines.1 But it is competent for the company, as a common carrier, to contract to carry either passengers or freight beyond the terminus of its own line; 2 and where such a contract is entered into, the company subjects itself to liability for loss or injury over the whole course of transit. And it has been held in some of the states, in accordance with the English rule,4 that the acceptance by a railway company of goods marked to a point beyond its own line imposes a duty to deliver them to the consignee. But the rule generally followed in the United States is, that the company is lia. ble for injuries that occur beyond the termination of its BOONE CORP.-35.

own road only when it enters into a contract to deliver the property at a point beyond. But when it does so contract, any stipulation in the contract or notice to the other party, to the effect that the company will not be liable for loss or damage occasioned by negligence or fault while the goods are not upon its own road, is against public policy and void, equally as in case of transportation exclusively upon its own road. The company delivering property in an injured condition is presumed to be responsible for the injury, rather than some prior company from which it received the property.8

1 Railroad Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. 123; Sherman v. Hudson River R. R. Co. 64 N. Y. 254; Wait v. Albany etc. R. R. Co. 5 Lans. 475; Knight v. Portland etc. R. R. Co. 56 Me. 234; Hartan v. Eastern R. R. Co. 114 Mass. 44.

2 Kessler_v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 7 Lans. 63; 61 N. Y. 538; Mills v. Orange etc. R. R. Co. 1 McAr. 285; Croft v. Baltimore ctc. R. R. Co. id. 492; Noyes v. Rutland etc. R. R. Co. 27 Vt. 110; Rome R. R. Co. v. Sullivan, 25 Ga. 228.

3 Kessler v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 7 Lans. 63; 61 N. Y. 538; Monell v. Northern etc. R. R. Co. 67 Barb. 531; Croft v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. 1 McAr. 492; Wylde v. Northern R. R. Co. 14 Abb. Pr. N. S. 213.

4 See Morse v. Brainerd, 41 Vt. 550; Muschamp v. Railw. Co. 8 Mees. & W. 421; Cranch v. Railw. Co. 25 Eng. L. & Eq. 287.

5 See Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Campbell, 7 Heisk. 253; Mulligan v. Ill. etc. R. R. Co. 36 Iowa, 181; Nashua Lock Co. v. Worcester etc. R. R. Co. 48 N. H. 339; 2 Am. R. 262; Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co. v. Smith, 74 Ill. 197.

6 Crawford v. Southern R. R. 51 Miss. 222; Lowenburg v. Jones, 56 id. 688; 31 Am. R. 379; Morse v. Brainerd, 41 Vt. 550; and see Cutts v. Brainerd, 42 id. 566; Toledo etc. R. R. Co. v. Lockhart, 71 Ill. 627.

7 Cin. etc. R. R. Co. v. Pontius, 19 Ohio St. 221; 2 Am. R. 391.

8 Evans v. Atlanta etc. R. R. Co. 56 Ga. 498; Paramore v. Western R. R. Co. 53 id. 383; and see Sherman v. Hudson River R. R. Co. 64 N. Y. 254.

§ 264. Railroads in streets.-The legislature may authorize a railway company to build its road within the corporate limits of a town or city, or upon a street or other public highway. It may even authorize the use of a street for a railroad without the consent of the city, and without making compensation to the city.2 The power which the state has to set apart a proper portion of a city street for railroad use may be, and usually is, delegated to the municipal government; and a railway company may ac

H

quire, by conveyance from the city authorities, the same right to occupy the streets for the use of its road as it might acquire under the right of eminent domain. The grant of a right to build a railroad in a city street is not necessarily exclusive; 5 and under such a grant, not ex clusive, the legislature may lawfully authorize a second company to use the tracks of the first railway, making compensation therefor. And city councils, having a gen eral power to authorize railroads to be laid in the streets. may, although there is one track in a street, grant the right to construct another in the same street. And street railway company cannot complain that another rail way track is allowed to cross theirs.8 Nor is the exclusive right to construct and operate a horse railway in a city in fringed by the construction of a road in the same city to be operated by steam. It has generally been held, that the construction and operation of a horse railroad in thə public streets of a city does not impose a new servitude upon the land, for which the owners of the fee are entitled to compensation; except, perhaps, where some private right of such an owner, as his free access to his own land or buildings, has been materially impaired thereby." But the courts in some of the states hold, that the owner of the fee is entitled to compensation for the additional burden imposed by the street railway.12 If the charter requires the consent of a majority of the property owners along the proposed route, their acquiescence in standing by without protest, and seeing the company construct and operate its road under a claim of right, may be regarded as evidence of consent.18

10

1 Tenn. etc. R. R. Co. v. Adams, 3 Head, 596; and see Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. v. Reaney, 42 Md. 117; Adams v. Saratoga etc. R. R. Ca 11 Barb. 414; People v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 45 id. 73; Porter v. North Mo. R. R. Co. 33 Mo. 128; Ex parte So. Car. R. R. Co. 2 Rich. 434; State . Mayor etc. 35 N. J. L. 205.

2 Hiner. Keokuk etc. R. R. Co. 42 Iowa, 636; and see Hinchman" Paterson Horse Railw. Co. 17 N. J. Eq. 75; People v. Kerr, 37 Barb. 357: New Orleans etc. R. R. Co. v. New Orleans, 26 La. An. 517; Cin. etc. B R. Co. v. Cummingsville, 14 Ohio St. 523; South Carolina K. R. Co Steiner, 44 Ga. 546.

3 N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. v. New York, 1 Hilt. 562: Jersey City etc Railw. Co. v. Jersey City etc. Railw. Co. 20 N. J. Eq. 61.

4 Cook v. City of Burlington, 36 Iowa, 357; and compare Ingram v. Railroad Co. 38 id. 669. But city authorities cannot coufer upon individuals, by contract or license for an indefinite period, the franchise of constructing and operating a railroad in the public streets for their own private use: Milhau v. Sharp, 27 N. Y. 611; State v. Inhabitants etc. 36 N. J. L. 79.

5 Brooklyn etc. R. R. Co. v. Coney Island R. R. Co. 35 Barb. 364.

6 Metropolitan R. R. e. Highland St. Railw. Co. 118 Mass. 290; and see Metropolitan R. R. Co. v. Quincy R. R. Co. 12 Allen, 262; Brooklyn Cent. R. R. Co. v. Brooklyn City R. R. Co. 32 Barb. 358.

7 Oakland R. R. Co. v. Oakland etc. R. R. Co. 45 Cal. 365. 13 Am. R. 181.

8 Market St. Rallw. Co. v. Cent. Railw. Co. 51 Cal. 583; Brooklyn etc. R. R. Co. v. Brooklyn R. R. Co. 33 Barb. 420. See Perry v. New Orleans etc. R. R. Co. 55 Ala. 413; 28 Am. R. 740. But such company is entitled to exclude from the habitual and continuous use of its track, any one engaged in carrying passengers for hire in competition with it: Citizens' Coach Co. v. Cainden Horse R. R. Co. 23 Alb. L J. 169.

9 Denver etc. Railw. Co. v. Denver City Railw. Co. 2 Cal. 673. 10 New Albany Railw. Co. v. O'Daily, 12 Ind. 551; Att.-Gen. v. Metrop. Railway Co. 125 Mass. 515; 28 Am. R. 264; Elliott v. Fair Haven etc. R. R. Co. 32 Conn. 579; Hinchman v. Paterson Horse Railw. Co. 17 N. J. Eq. 75; Paterson etc. Horse R. R. Co. v. Paterson, 9 Green, C. E. 158. Compare Ford v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 14 Wis. 609.

11 Hobart v. Milwaukee City R. R. Co. 27 Wis. 194; 9 Am. R. 461. See also Cin. etc. Railw. Co. v. Cummingsville, 14 Ohio St. 523; Crawford v. Delaware, 7 id. 459.

12 Craig v. Rochester City etc. R. R. Co. 39 N. Y. 404; and compare $248, ante.

13 Paterson etc. R. R. Co. v. Mayor etc. 24 N. J. Eq. 158.

§ 265. Extent of right to use of street.-The interest of a horse railway company in the street through which its tracks run is a right of way.1 The franchise authorizes the company to use the street only in common with others.2 The business of the company in carrying passengers in cars over the streets must be conducted under the restrictions which govern natural persons transacting the same business. The municipal authorities have the power to regulate the manner in which the franchise of the company is to be exercised; and this includes authority to impose upon the company a reasonable license fee, for the purpose of maintaining proper police regulations.5 If a railway company accepts a license from a city to construct its road in the streets of the latter, the terms and conditions of the license consti