462 CARRIERS OF ANIMALS. 



It was held, however, in Michigan that a charter granted 

 to a railway company before the prevalence of the custom 

 of carrying live-stock by rail, did not impose on the company 

 the duty of transporting cattle, except by a special agree- 

 ment: hence, the company were not common carriers of 

 animals. The court said : "The transportation of cattle and 

 live-stock by common carriers by land was unknown to the 

 common law, when the duties and responsibilities of common 

 carriers were fixed, making them insurers against all losses 

 and injuries not arising from the acts of God or of the public 

 enemies. These responsibilities and duties were fixed with 

 reference to kinds of property involving, in their transporta- 

 tion, much fewer risks and of quite a different kind from those 

 which are incident to the transportation of live-stock by rail- 

 road. Animals have wants of their own to be supplied; and 

 this is a mode of conveyance at which, from their nature and 

 habits, most animals instinctively revolt; and cattle especially, 

 crowded in a dense mass, frightened by the noise of the 

 engine, the rattling, jolting and frequent concussions of the 

 cars, in their frenzy injure each other by trampling, plunging, 

 goring, or throwing down; and frequently, on long routes, 

 their strength exhausted by hunger and thirst, fatigue and 

 fright, the weak easily fall and are trampled upon and unless 

 helped up, must soon die. Hogs also swelter and perish. . . . 

 It is a mode of transportation which, but for its necessity, 

 would be gross cruelty and indictable as such. The risk may 

 be greatly lessened by care and vigilance, by feeding and 

 watering at proper intervals, by getting up those that are 

 down, and otherwise. But this imposes a degree of care and 

 an amount of labor so different from what is required in 



be liable: Kan. City, M. & B. R. Co. v. Higdon, 94 Ala. 286. Regula- 

 tions prohibiting passengers from taking dogs with them in the passen- 

 ger cars and requiring payment for carrying dogs in baggage cars are 

 reasonable: Gregory v. Chic. & N. R. Co., 100 la. 345. 



As to responsibility for receiving a vicious dog, see Trinity & S. R. 

 Co. V. O'Brien (Tex. Civ. App.), 46 S. W. Rep. 389. 



