CARRYING HORSES. 265 



circumstance but something overwhelming (i), and which 

 "could not have been prevented by any amount of foresight 

 and pains, and care reasonably to be expected from " the 

 Carrier (/»■). 



The liability of railway companies as common carriers Inlierent 

 of animals is subject to a further exception in cases where ^^°^' 

 the injury is the consequence of an inherent vice of the 

 animal carried, w^hich results in its destruction, without 

 any negligence on their part. The leading case on this 

 subject is Blower v. Great Western Rail. Co. (I), which was 

 an action brought in the County Court of Monmouthshire 

 against the Great Western Railway Company for the 

 non-delivery of a Bullock which was delivered to them at 

 Dingestow station to be carried by them to Northampton. 

 In the course of the journey the animal escaped from the 

 truck in which it was placed, and was killed. In a case 

 stated by the County Court Judge, it was found that the 

 escape was w^holly attributable to the efforts and exertions 

 of the animal itself, and not to any negligence on the part 

 of the company, and that the truck -was in every respect 

 proper and reasonably sufficient for the conveyance of cattle ; 

 the Court held that, upon this state of facts, the Judge ought 

 to have directed a verdict for the defendants, and Willes, J., 

 in the course of his judgment, said, " The Bullock was 

 received by the company under the terms of a notice 

 which is assailed by the plaintiff. It is unnecessary to 

 consider whether or not the notice was a reasonable one. 

 The question for our decision is, whether the defendants, 

 upon the facts and findings of the County Court Judge, 

 are liable as common carriers for the loss of this animal. 

 Whether a railway company are common carriers of animals 

 is a question upon which there has been much conflict of 

 opinion, and, although there may be difficulties in deter- 

 mining that question, such as induced Lord Wensleydale, 

 in Carr v. LancasJdre and Yor/cs//irc Rail. Co. {m), to make 

 the observations which have elicited remarks from some 



(i) OaMey Y. Portsmouth, ^-c. Steam Katharine Lochs Co., L. R., 3 Ch. 



Packet Co., 11 Exch. 623 ; 21 L. J., D. 603 ; 39 L. T., N. S. 433. 



Ex. 101, per Martin, B. (/) L. R., 7 C. P. 655 ; 41 L. J., 



[k) Nvgent v. Smith, L. E., 1 C. C. P. 268 ; 27 L. T., N. S. 883 ; 



P. D. 441, 444 ; 45 L. J., C. P. 697 ; and see Clark v. Rochester and Si/ra- 



34L.T.,]Sr.S. 827; per James,L. J. cuse Hailroad Co.,!^ Nevf York, 570; 



See also Nichols v. ilarsJand, L. R., liisseU v. New York Central liailroacl 



10 Ex. 255 ; L. R., 2 Ex. D. 1 ; Co., 25 New York, 442. 



46 L. J., Ex. 174: Roscoe, N. P. (w) 7 Ex. 712, 713; 21 L. J., 



14th ed. 569, and Nitro- Phosphate, Ex. 261. 

 ^•c. Manure Co. v. London 6; St. 



