The word _Inhabitants_, says Sir Edward Coke, is the largest word of the kind, and includes every corporation or Body Politic, residing in any County, Riding, City or Town. To these authorities we shall only add, that in 2 Bac. Abr. Wilson's Edition, page 10, it is expressly laid down, that _Corporations_ in the character of _owners_ or _occupiers_ of houses or lands, are subject to the same burden to which _individuals_ are subject, in the same character.
The good sense of these decisions, must strike every body, as their tendency is to place natural and artificial bodies on the same footing.
The third exception filed by the defendant, viz: that the two justices ordered the complainants to put up the fence, _without_ requiring proof that the defendant had _not_ complied with the order of the viewers, is destitute of foundation. The record of the justices show that this exception is founded in mistake.
The fourth exception is, that the viewers had no authority to order the defendant to put up and repair his fence _on the line_.
It is certain they could not order him to put it up or repair it _off the line_; and having directed him to repair it _on the line_, cannot invalidate the order. Viewing the words, _on the line_, in the most exceptionable light, they can be deemed nothing but surplusage. The substantial drift of the order is, that the defendant shall repair the fence.
With respect to the affidavit of the defendant of the 6th of January, 1816, that he has enclosed completely the burial ground on his _own_ ground, leaving an interval of 10 feet between the line of the burial ground and the fence he has put up, the Court would remark, that generally speaking, a man has a right to put up a fence upon his own land, and as many as he pleases. A man must however so exercise his right, as not to injure those of another. Having once joined fences with his neighbours he cannot, when ordered to repair his share of it, evade the law, by removing it, and placing it altogether upon his _own_ ground. Where the law has once laid its hands upon a man, he must not be allowed to escape from its operation. Nothing can meet the approbation of a Court, that would look like an evasion of the law. A man cannot in one and the same breath, say he is bound and not bound. Whether a person might remove his share of a _division fence_ and place it upon his _own_ ground, prior to an inspection by the fence viewers, is a point not now before the Court. But we are very clearly of opinion, removing a fence _after_ it had been repaired in obedience to the order of two Justices, cannot exempt him from the operation of the law.