Chapter 1 FENCES IN GENERAL

Sec.

§ 35-101. Lawful fences in general.

A lawful fence, except as hereinafter provided, must be not less than four and one-half (4-½) feet high, and the bottom board, rail, pole or wire must not be more than twenty (20) inches above the ground, and the space between the top and bottom board, rail, pole or wire must be well divided.

History.

R.S., § 1300; reen. R.C. & C.L., § 1264; C.S., § 1956; I.C.A.,§ 34-101.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Animals running at large,§ 25-2101 et seq.

Coterminous owners to maintain fences between them,§ 55-312.

Estrays,§ 25-2301 et seq.

Herd districts,§ 25-2401 et seq.

Liens on trespassing stock,§ 25-2201.

CASE NOTES

Disrepair.

Evidence sufficiently supported trial court’s findings that, at the time plaintiff’s automobile struck defendant’s calf on the highway, the fence, owned and maintained by defendant to inclose his cattle, was in disrepair and did not conform to the standards prescribed for lawful fences. Soran v. Schoessler, 87 Idaho 425, 394 P.2d 160 (1964), overruled on other grounds, Moreland v. Adams, 143 Idaho 687, 152 P.3d 558 (2007).

Fence Posts.

A finding that fence posts of defendant appellant, who was sued for damages sustained by plaintiff’s automobile when it struck defendant’s calf along the highway, “were not set substantially in the ground and were rotted at the ground causing many posts to lean perceptibly,” was sustained by the evidence. Soran v. Schoessler, 87 Idaho 425, 394 P.2d 160 (1964), overruled on other grounds, Moreland v. Adams, 143 Idaho 687, 152 P.3d 558 (2007).

Instructions.

In suit by motorist to recover for damage occasioned by a nighttime collision with a cow roaming a heavily traveled highway, the jury should have been instructed on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, that doctrine having application in view of lack of sufficient explanation of failure to keep cow inclosed and lack of showing fence through which cow broke conformed to the legal requirements of a fence. O’Connor v. Black, 80 Idaho 96, 326 P.2d 376 (1958).

Negligence.

Evidence sustained trial court’s conclusion that defendant, whose calf was struck by plaintiff’s automobile, failed to act as a reasonable and prudent person with respect to his pasture fence and in allowing his livestock on the public highway, that plaintiff acted prudently, and that defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s damage. Soran v. Schoessler, 87 Idaho 425, 394 P.2d 160 (1964), overruled on other grounds, Moreland v. Adams, 143 Idaho 687, 152 P.3d 558 (2007).

Purpose.

The legal fence laws of this state are “fencing out” statutes and recognize the rancher’s right to allow cattle to roam. Maguire v. Yanke, 99 Idaho 829, 590 P.2d 85 (1978).

Railroad Fence.

In suit by plaintiff against railroad to recover damages for loss of horse and colt on defendant’s right of way at a spot where the only barrier was a 15 foot fill, evidence that the defendant had erected a fence shortly after the accident where the accident had occurred was material for the purpose of showing antecedent negligence on defendant’s part, and defendant’s recognition of a defect it was bound to remedy. Zenier v. Spokane Int’l R.R., 78 Idaho 196, 300 P.2d 494 (1956).

Cited

Corthell v. Pearson, 88 Idaho 295, 399 P.2d 266 (1965); State v. Kelly, 106 Idaho 268, 678 P.2d 60 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Flynn, 107 Idaho 206, 687 P.2d 596 (Ct. App. 1984).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

35A Am. Jur. 2d Fences, § 1 et seq.

C.J.S.

§ 35-102. Lawful fences described.

Lawful fences are described as follows:

  1. If made of stone, four feet (4′) high, two feet (2′) base, and one foot (1′) thick on top.
  2. If it be a worm fence, the rails must be well laid and at least four feet (4′) high.
  3. If made of posts, with boards, rails or poles, the posts must be well set in the ground and not more than eight feet (8′) apart, with not less than three (3) six-inch (6″) boards, or rails, or poles not less than two and one-half inches (2 ½″) in diameter at the small end; if four (4) poles are used, they must not be less than two inches (2″) in diameter at the small end. The top board, rail or pole must not be less than four feet (4′) from the ground, the spaces well divided, and the boards, rails or poles securely fastened to the posts; if poles not less than three inches (3″) in diameter at the small end are used, the posts may be set twelve feet (12′) apart.
  4. If wire be used in the construction of fences, the posts must not be more than twenty-four feet (24′) apart, set substantially in the ground, and three (3) substantial stays must be placed at equal distances between the posts, and all wires must be securely fastened to each post and stay with not less than three (3) barbed wires, or four (4) coiled spring wires of not less than number nine (9) gauge. The bottom wire shall be not more than twenty-one inches (21″) from the ground, and the other wires a proper distance apart. The wires must be well stretched and the fence not less than forty-seven inches (47″) high. If all woven wire fencing is used, the top and bottom wire must be not less than number nine (9) gauge, or two (2) number thirteen (13) gauge wires twisted together, with intermediate bars not less than twelve inches (12″) apart and of not less than number fourteen (14) gauge wire, and the stay wires not more than twelve inches (12″) apart, and the top wire not less than forty-seven inches (47″) from the ground. If woven wire less in height is used, it must be brought to the height of forty-seven inches (47″) by additional barbed wires, or coiled spring wire of not less than number nine (9) gauge, and not more than twelve inches (12″) between the wires: provided, that if barbed wire only is used, and the posts are not more than sixteen feet (16′) apart, no stays need be used. Provided further that the minimum forty-seven inch (47″) fence height specified above may be reduced to forty-two inches (42″) for right-of-way fences on the state highway system when mutually agreed by the Idaho director of department of transportation and the director of the Idaho fish and game department as necessary to accommodate big game animals at major migration crossings.
  5. If made in whole or in part of brush, ditch, pickets, hedge, or any other materials, the fence, to be lawful, must be equal in strength and capacity to turn stock, to the fence above described.
  6. All fences in good repair, of suitable material and of every description, and all creeks, brooks, rivers, sloughs, ponds, bluffs, hills or mountains, that present a suitable obstruction to stock are deemed lawful fences.
History.

R.S., § 1301; am. 1901, p. 207, § 1; am. 1907, p. 132, § 1; reen. R.C. & C.L., § 1265; C.S., § 1957; I.C.A.,§ 34-102; am. 1967, ch. 261, § 1, p. 731.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Director of department of fish and game,§ 36-106.

Director of department of transportation,§ 40-503.

Lien on livestock breaking into inclosure,§ 25-2201.

Compiler’s Notes.

The name of state highway engineer in subdivision 4 has been changed to director of department of transportation on authority of S.L. 1974, ch. 286, § 1 and S.L. 1974, ch. 12, § 13.

CASE NOTES

Disrepair.

Evidence sufficiently supported trial court’s finding that, at the time plaintiff’s automobile struck defendant’s calf on the highway, the fence, owned and maintained by defendant to inclose his cattle was in disrepair and did not conform to the standards prescribed for lawful fences. Soran v. Schoessler, 87 Idaho 425, 394 P.2d 160 (1964), overruled on other grounds, Moreland v. Adams, 143 Idaho 687, 152 P.3d 558 (2007).

Fence Posts.

A finding that fence posts of defendant appellant, who was sued for damages sustained by plaintiff’s automobile when it struck defendant’s calf along the highway, “were not set substantially in the ground and were rotted at the ground causing many posts to lean perceptibly,” were sustained by the evidence. Soran v. Schoessler, 87 Idaho 425, 394 P.2d 160 (1964), overruled on other grounds, Moreland v. Adams, 143 Idaho 687, 152 P.3d 558 (2007).

Instructions.

In suit by motorist to recover for damage occasioned by a nighttime collision with a cow roaming a heavily traveled highway, the jury should have been instructed on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, that doctrine having application in view of lack of sufficient explanation of failure to keep cow inclosed and lack of showing fence through which cow broke conformed to the legal requirements of a fence. O’Connor v. Black, 80 Idaho 96, 326 P.2d 376 (1958).

Negligence.

Evidence sustained trial court’s conclusion that defendant, whose calf was struck by plaintiff’s automobile, failed to act as a reasonable and prudent person with respect to his pasture fence and in allowing his livestock on the public highway, that plaintiff acted prudently, and that defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s damage. Soran v. Schoessler, 87 Idaho 425, 394 P.2d 160 (1964), overruled on other grounds, Moreland v. Adams, 143 Idaho 687, 152 P.3d 558 (2007).

Railroad Fence.

In suit by plaintiff against railroad to recover damages for loss of horse and colt on defendant’s right of way at a spot where the only barrier was a 15 foot fill, evidence that the defendant had erected a fence shortly after the accident where the accident had occurred was material for the purpose of showing antecedent negligence on defendant’s part, and defendant’s recognition of a defect it was bound to remedy. Zenier v. Spokane Int’l R.R., 78 Idaho 196, 300 P.2d 494 (1956).

Cited

State v. Flynn, 107 Idaho 206, 687 P.2d 596 (Ct. App. 1984).

§ 35-103. Erection of partition fences.

When two or more persons own land adjoining which is inclosed by one (1) fence, and it becomes necessary for the protection of the rights and interests of one (1) party that a partition fence be made between them, the other or others, when notified, must proceed to erect, or cause to be erected, one-half (½) of such partition fence; said fence to be erected on, or as near as practicable to, the line of said land. And if, after notice given in writing, either party fails to erect and complete, within six (6) months time thereafter, one-half (½) of such fence, the party giving the notice may proceed to erect the entire partition fence and collect by law one-half (½) the costs of such fence from the other party, and he has a lien upon the land thus partitioned.

History.

1884, p. 118, § 1; R.S., § 1302; reen. R.C. & C.L., § 1266; C.S., § 1958; I.C.A.,§ 34-103.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Coterminous owners to maintain fences between them,§ 55-312.

Partition of decedents’ estates,§ 15-3-911.

Partition proceedings,§ 6-501 et seq.

Railroad rights of way, damages in eminent domain proceedings to include costs of fences and cattle-guards,§ 7-711; bond for payment authorized,§ 7-714.

Trespass of animals,§ 25-2201 et seq.

CASE NOTES

Failure to Maintain.

Where erection and maintenance of fence is provided for by agreement which has run for some years, upon failure of one of the parties to keep up fence as agreed, other party may resort to remedy provided by statute or action for breach of contract. Tsuboi v. Cohn, 40 Idaho 102, 231 P. 708 (1924).

Limitation.
Prerequisite.

This section does not allow the erection of a statutory fence on another’s property. Porter v. Bassett, 146 Idaho 399, 195 P.3d 1212 (2008). Prerequisite.

A prerequisite for the application of this section is that the adjoining parcels of land be enclosed by one fence. Where property owners claimed that the parcels were enclosed by one fence, but presented no evidence of such, this section does not apply. Porter v. Bassett, 146 Idaho 399, 195 P.3d 1212 (2008).

§ 35-104. Care of fences by adjoining owners.

Each adjoining land owner, unless both otherwise agree, or unless other arrangements have heretofore been made, must construct and keep in repair that half of the line fence between their respective tracts of land which is to his left when he is standing on his own land facing the other; unless the owner of one (1) of said tracts choose to allow his land to be uninclosed: provided, that one (1) party may, for his own convenience, strengthen, or render hog-tight, the whole or any part of said fence by stretching one (1) or more additional wires thereon or otherwise; in which event the other shall not be liable for his proportion of the additional cost: provided further, if one (1) of the parties shall render such fence hog-tight and the other shall at any time use his field for the pasture of hogs, sheep or goats, without a herder, such other shall become liable as a joint user or owner, and shall, upon demand of the party building the hog-tight fence, pay his just proportion thereof. In case viewers are appointed, as provided in section 35-106[, Idaho Code], the report of such viewers must be in conformity with this section.

History.

1884, p. 118, § 1; R.S., § 1303; am. 1907, p. 133, § 2; reen. R.C. & C.L., § 1267; C.S., § 1959; I.C.A.,§ 34-104.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Coterminous owners to maintain fences between them,§ 55-312.

Compiler’s Notes.

The bracketed insertion in the last sentence was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.

CASE NOTES

Failure to Maintain.

Where erection and maintenance of fence is provided for by agreement which has run for some years, upon failure of one of parties to keep up fence as agreed, other party may resort to remedy provided by statute or action for breach of contract. Tsuboi v. Cohn, 40 Idaho 102, 231 P. 708 (1924).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.
C.J.S.

§ 35-105. Use of division fence in making inclosure.

When one (1) of such adjoining proprietors has allowed his land to lie uninclosed, and afterward incloses it, he owes and is indebted to such adjoining owner one-half (½) the value of any division fence owned by the other, used by him in forming such inclosure; and each must thereafter keep one-half (½) of such fence in repair.

History.

1884, p. 118, § 1; R.S., § 1304; reen. R.C. & C.L., § 1268; C.S., § 1960; I.C.A.,§ 34-105.

§ 35-106. Disagreement between owners — Viewers.

If adjoining proprietors cannot agree as to the proportion or the particular part of a division fence to be made, maintained or kept in repair by each respectively, either party may apply, on five (5) days’ notice, to a magistrate judge, for the appointment of three (3) viewers, who may examine witnesses on oath, and view the premises and must determine:

  1. If the fence is owned by one (1) proprietor, how much the other must pay as his proportion of the value.
  2. If the fence or the whole thereof is not built, which part thereof must afterward be built and kept in repair by each.

The determination of the viewers must be reduced to writing and signed by them, and filed in the office of the county recorder, and such determination is conclusive upon the parties. If any part of such determination consists in fixing the value of a fence for which one (1) party is to pay the other a proportion also fixed, such proportion must be paid within thirty (30) days after notice of such determination, and if not so paid, may be recovered by action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The viewers are entitled to a fee of three dollars ($3.00) each, one-half (½) to be paid by each proprietor.

History.

1884, p. 118, § 1; R.S., § 1305; reen. R.C. & C.L., § 1269; C.S., § 1961; I.C.A.,§ 34-106; am. 2012, ch. 20, § 18, p. 66.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Report of viewers to conform to law,§ 35-104.

Amendments.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 20, substituted “magistrate judge” for “justice of the peace of the township, if there be one, if not, to the probate judge” near the middle of the introductory paragraph.

§ 35-107. Prohibition against removal.

When one (1) party ceases to improve his land, or open his inclosure, he must not take away any part of the partition fence belonging to him and adjoining the next inclosure, if the owner or occupant of such adjoining inclosure will, within two (2) months, after the same is ascertained, pay therefor such sum as is agreed upon by the parties, or, if failing to agree, then such sum as may be adjudged by viewers as provided in the last section; nor must such partition fence be removed when by so doing it will expose to destruction any crops in such inclosures.

History.

1884, p. 118, § 4; am. R.S., § 1306; reen. R.C. & C.L., § 1270; C.S., § 1962; I.C.A.,§ 34-107.

§ 35-108. Removal of fence built by mistake.

When any person has built, by mistake and in good faith, a fence on the land of another, such person or his successor in interest may, within one (1) year from the time of discovering such mistake, go upon the land of such other person and remove such fence, doing no unnecessary damage thereby.

History.

1884, p. 118, § 5; am. R.S., § 1307; reen. R.C. & C.L., § 1271; C.S., § 1963; I.C.A.,§ 34-108.

§ 35-109. Restrictions on occupant’s right to remove fence.

The occupant or owner of land whereon a fence has been built by mistake, must not throw down or in any manner disturb such fence during the period which the person who built it is authorized by section 35-108[, Idaho Code,] to remove it, when by so doing he will expose any crop to destruction.

History.

1884, p. 118, § 6; am. R.S., § 1308; reen. R.C. & C.L., § 1272; C.S., § 1964; I.C.A.,§ 34-109.

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

The bracketed insertion near the end of the section was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.

§ 35-110. Survey of line.

The person building such fence, or the occupant or owner of the land whereon the same is built, may, upon notice to the other party, whenever doubts arise about the location of such fence, procure the services of a professional land surveyor to establish the boundary line between their respective lands, and the line so established is sufficient notice to the party making the mistake, so as to require him to remove such fence within one (1) year thereafter.

History.

1884, p. 118, § 7; am. R.S., § 1309; reen. R.C. & C.L., § 1273; C.S., § 1965; I.C.A.,§ 34-110; am. 1963, ch. 87, § 1, p. 282; am. 2002, ch. 7, § 1, p. 10.

CASE NOTES

Legal Boundary.

This section did not require the landowner to move the fence because there was no evidence the fence was erected in its current location by accident; although the fence encroached on the neighbor’s deeded property, it now marked the legal boundary between the parties. Flying Elk Inv., LLC v. Cornwall, 149 Idaho 9, 232 P.3d 330 (2010).

§ 35-111. Removal of partition fence.

In all cases where the inclosures of two (2) or more persons are divided by a partition fence of any kind, and either of the parties thinks proper to vacate his part of such inclosure, or to make a lane of passage between such adjoining inclosures, such person is at liberty to remove his share or part of such partition fence, on giving six (6) months’ notice in writing of such intention to the party owning or occupying the adjoining inclosure, or to his agent, if such party is not a resident of the county.

History.

1884, p. 118, § 8; am. R.S., § 1310; reen. R.C. & C.L., § 1274; C.S., § 1966; I.C.A.,§ 34-111.

§ 35-112. Establishment of gates.

In all cases where a partition fence exists between parties, and a gate is established for passage through their lands, any other person may pass through such gate free, doing no unnecessary damage, and if any such person leave any such gate open, or does other damage to the premises, he is liable to the party aggrieved in double damages.

History.

1884, p. 118, § 9; am. R.S., § 1311; reen. R.C. & C.L., § 1275; C.S., § 1967; I.C.A.,§ 34-112.

Chapter 2 INCLOSURES OF RESERVOIRS AND DUMPS

Sec.

§ 35-201. Quartz mills — Reservoirs and dumps to be inclosed.

The owner or operator of any quartz mill must inclose with a good and substantial fence, sufficient to turn stock, all reservoirs and dumps or other material, known to contain that which is injurious to the health of stock.

History.

1872, p. 61, § 1; am. R.S., § 1335; reen. R.C. & C.L., § 1276; C.S., § 1968; I.C.A.,§ 34-201.

§ 35-202. Liability for failure to inclose.

Every person who fails to comply with the provisions of section 35-201[, Idaho Code,] is liable to the owner of any stock injured by drinking the water or acids that flow from such mill, in twice the damage sustained.

History.

1872, p. 61, § 2; am. R.S., § 1336; reen. R.C. & C.L., § 1277; C.S., § 1969; I.C.A.,§ 34-202.

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

The bracketed insertion near the middle of the section was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.

Chapter 3 BARBED WIRE

Sec.

§ 35-301. Careless exposure of barbed wire unlawful.

It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation, who, having barbed wire or barbed wire fences, to allow the same to be left down or strewn around on the ground in such a manner that livestock are liable to be injured thereby: provided, however, that no person, firm or corporation shall be liable for barbed wires left down or strewn about where the same are not so exposed that there is danger of injury to animals running at large.

History.

1915, ch. 123, § 1, p. 269; compiled and reen. C.L. 114:1; C.S., § 2596; I.C.A.,§ 34-301.

§ 35-302. Notice to owner.

It shall be the duty of any person, sheriff, deputy sheriff, constable or policeman having knowledge by written notice or otherwise that any said barbed wire or barbed wire fence is so down or strewn on the ground to give notice either verbally or otherwise to such person, firm or corporation that said barbed wire or barbed wire fence is so down or strewn on the ground.

History.

1915, ch. 123, § 2, p. 269; reen. C.L. 114:2; C.S., § 2597; I.C.A.,§ 34-302.

§ 35-303. Owner’s liability after notice.

Any person, firm or corporation who, after knowing by his own knowledge or by receiving such notice as provided in section 35-302[, Idaho Code], shall fail to remove same within ten (10) days after such notice, shall be subject to the fines contained herein.

History.

1915, ch. 123, § 3, p. 269; reen. C.L. 114:3; C.S., § 2598; I.C.A.,§ 34-303.

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

The bracketed insertion near the middle of the section was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

§ 35-304. Procedure in case of unknown owner.

It shall be the duty of any sheriff, deputy sheriff or constable who by personal knowledge or otherwise knowing of any barbed wire or barbed wire fence being so strewn or down as provided in section 35-301[, Idaho Code], on any ranch or fence which has been abandoned, and the owner of such fence or ranch is unknown or has left the state so that notice cannot be served on such person, firm or corporation to take or cause to be taken up, such barbed wire or barbed wire fence, and sell the same at public auction to the highest bidder and the proceeds shall go to cover the expense of the removal of said barbed wire or barbed wire fence, and if there be any money left over from such sale, it shall be turned in to the county treasurer of the county wherein such fence or ranch is located.

History.

1915, ch. 123, § 4, p. 269; reen C.L. 114:4; C.S., § 2599; I.C.A.,§ 34-304.

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

The bracketed insertion near the middle of the section was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.

§ 35-305. Penalty.

Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not less than five dollars ($5.00) or more than twenty-five dollars ($25.00), in the discretion of the court.

History.

1915, ch. 123, § 5, p. 269; reen. C.L. 114:5; C.S., § 2600; I.C.A.,§ 34-305.