Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/880

 866 FEDERAL EBPOBTEB. �and, "if A, and B. bave lands adjoining, where there îs no enclosure, the one shall have trespasa against the other on the escape of their beasts respectively." Id. 28. �This would seem to preclude the idea of one having a cause of action against another for trespasses by one's own cattle on one's own land or crops, unless there be some extraordi- nary liability, growing ont of other obligations than those imposed upon adjoining land owners towards each other. Mr. Addison says that the making of a fence by a land owner does not raise any inference that the fence was intended for the benefit of his neighbor, although the fence prevents his neighbor's beasts from trespassing as well as his own, for it is for his own beneiît to prevent his beasts from trespassing on his neighbor. 1 Add. Torts, (4th Ed.) 149. And, where statutes or self-interest require him to protect his land with fences from straying cattle, still less can there be any infer- ence from the mere building of the fence that there is an im- plied contraet to maintain it for the benefit of his neighbor who happons to be protected by it. There may be, unques- tionably, a valid prescription binding the owner of land to maintain perpetually the fence between him and the adjoin- ing proprietor, but, in the absence of some covenant or grant, this servitude can only be established, like other prescrip- tions, by long-continued, peaceable, and uninterrupted enjoy- ment for the length of time necessary to raise the presump- tion of a grant or covenant. Id. and notes; Id. 96, and notes. �The petitioner here might, in consideration of her grant of the right of way, have imposed this obligation on the Com- pany, or she might have demanded as a consideration money enough to cover the costs of the necessary fences in the changed condition of her fields; but, not having used this pre- caution, she cannot supply the want of it by any implication of a contraet imposing the obligation. �An American railway company is not bound to fence its railway, as an American farmer is bound to fence his fields, and in the absence of statutes imposing the obligation it does not exist. Railroad v. Skinner, 19 Pa. St. 298, 303 ; Clark v. ����