We cannot agree with the state that the shed, located within 45 to 60 feet of the house on a country farm, is not within the curtilage of the dwelling. The fact that there is no fence is immaterial. Wright v. State, 12 Ga. App. 514 (77 SE 657). From the evidence as a whole, it is obvious that the officers knew the road ended at this house, that the house was occupied, and had some general idea of who lived there. They went immediately to the back yard, following the tracks, without any effort to find out whether anyone was inside. The case is within the ruling in Lewis v. State, 126 Ga. App. 123, 126 (190 SE2d 123): "What is the effect of their subsequent entry without a warrant onto the defendant's premises? The trucks were right next to the defendant's house within an enclosed yard and within the curtilage. It is the general rule that a warrant is required to search the curtilage. Black v. State, 119 Ga. App. 855, 857 (168 SE2d 916). The intrusion under those circumstances was a trespass and unlawful . . . A search is a quest for information and that is exactly what the officers were accomplishing when they entered." It is well settled that Fourth Amendment protection extends to the curtilage of a dwelling house (McDowell v. U. S., 383 F2d 599 and cit.) and a roofed structure within 50 or 60 feet of the back door is well within the protected area, provided it is used for purposes related to the family household and domestic economy. A hog lot was held in Welch v. State, 154 Tenn. 60 (289 SW 510), to be so included, as have hen house, garden and pond. See 79 CJS 790, Searches & Seizures, 13.

It is obvious that under the circumstances of this case there were no exigent circumstances which would have prevented the officers, as was done in Lewis v. State, supra, from obtaining a warrant. The motion to suppress was improvidently overruled.