INSURANCE ON LIVE-STOCK. 163 



loss unless the expense is incurred.^^* And recovery may be 

 had on a policy warranted free from mortality and jettison 

 where the animals are killed by a storm,**' or, in consequence 

 of one, break down the partitions by which they are separated 

 and injure one another so that they die.*** 



50. Measure of Damages, Evidence of Value ^The measure of 



damages for an injury resulting in the death or permanent 

 disability of an animal is the value of the animal and the 

 reasonable medical and other expenses, if any, including per- 

 sonal services, incurred in trying to cure it and care for it 

 afterwards, deducting, in a proper case, the value of the car- 

 cass.**'^ But expenditures incurred where a reasonable man 

 would have known an injury to be incurable cannot be re- 

 covered.*** Nor can damages be given for love and afifec- 

 tion.**® A reasonable compensation for the loss of the use 

 of the animal while under treatment may be recovered.**** In 

 an action for injuries to a horse it was held that the money 

 expended for the hire of another horse to take its place while 

 under treatment might be considered.*** But it has been 



'-' The Pomeranian, [1895] P. 349- 



^" Lawrence v. Aberdein, S B. & Aid. 107. 



'-" Gabay v. Lloyd, 3 B. & C. 793- 



'"Smith V. Consumers' Ice Co., 52 N. Y. Super. Ct. 430; Watson v. 

 Bridge Co., 14 Me. 201; French v. Vining, 102 Mass. 132; Gillett v. West- 

 ern R. Corp., 8 Allen (Mass.) 560; Sullivan Co. v. Arnett, 116 Ind. 438; 

 Ellis V. Hilton, 78 Mich. 150. 



Damages for hunting for and feeding other animals which the plaintiff 

 feared would be killed also are not recoverable: Harmon v. Callahan 

 (Tex. Civ. App.), 35 S. W. Rep. 705. That damages for the trespass are 

 recoverable, even where the plaintiff has waived his claim to the value 

 of the animal, see Champion v. Vincent, 20 Tex. 811, cited in § 45, supra. 



See also §§ 69, 137, infra. 



'■'' Murphy v. McGraw, 74 Mich. 318. 



=™ Crawford v. Internat. & G. N. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 27 S. W. 

 Rep. 263. 



'=° Keyes v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 36 Minn. 290. And see § 69, 

 infra. 



=" Hutton V. Murphy, 9 Misc. (N. Y.) 151. But see Hughes v. Quen- 

 tin, 8 C. & P. 703. 



