Huffman

This is an appeal hy the defendants from an order granting a temporary injunction preventing defendants from allowing cattle owned or. controlled hy them to trespass upon the adjoining land of the plaintiff.

Plaintiff and defendant Coulter are the owners of adjoining unfenced lands. The other defendants are employees of the defendant Coulter and in charge of his cattle.

[1] Two questions are presented: The first is whether or not the common-law rule requiring the owner of cattle to keep his animals from his neighbors’ lands, fenced or unfenced, is in operation in San Bernardino County, California; the other relates to the sufficiency of the complaint to state a proper case for injunctive relief.

The first question is carefully and fully answered hy the late case of Montezuma Improvement Co. v. Simmerly, 181 Cal. 722 [ 189 Pac. 100 ], wherein it is held that the Estray Act of 1915 (Stats. 1915, p. 636), by the very force of its terms, repeals all “fence laws” in the counties of this state, except in the six counties specified therein, of which San Bernardino is not one; that it is settled law in California that the common-law rule applies in those counties of the state which…