464 CAEEIEES OF ANIMALS. 



side of the paper for the shipment of horses shall be governed 

 by such laws.^^ 



Where the animals are to be sent beyond the terminus of 

 the contracting carrier, a question arises as to its respon- 

 sibiHty for any loss sustained on the line of a connecting car- 

 rier. In England, where the contract is to forward the live- 

 stock all the way, the original carrier alone is liable for an 

 injury received on one of the other Hnes, though it may have 

 contracted that it shall incur no liability beyond its own line : 

 there is no privity of contract with the connecting carriers.^® 

 In this country, however, the mere receipt of the property by 

 the connecting carrier creates sufificient privity between it and 

 the shipper to enable the latter to maintain an action against 

 it on the contract and the connecting carrier may avail itself 

 of limitations in the contract by specially pleading them.^^ 

 The action in such a case may be brought against the carrier 

 in fault as well as against the carrier primarily responsible. 

 This is said to be the universal law of this country.^* 



Where there is no special contract or the contract is simply 

 to deliver the stock to a connecting carrier, the responsibility 

 of the carrier is confined to its own line and ceases with 

 delivery.^® In England and in some of the States the mere 

 receipt of goods to be carried to a destination beyond the 

 original carrier's line is held to be evidence of a contract to 

 transport beyond its terminus, but this rule does not prevail 



'° Brockway v. Amer. Exp. Co., 171 Mass. 158. 



" Coxon V. Gr. Western R. Co., S H. & N. 274. 



" Halliday v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co., 74 Mo. 159. 



An agreement to accept a proportionate amount of freight has been 

 held in Texas not to create privity nor to make the company a connecting 

 line in the statutory sense: Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Short (Tex. Civ. 

 App.), SI S. W. Rep. 261. 



" Hutchinson Carriers § 150, citing contra some early cases in Georgia, 

 where the law has since been changed by statute. 



" Myrick v. Mich. Cent. R. Co., 107 U. S. 102; Ala. Gr. South. R. Co. 

 V. Thomas, 83 Ala. 343; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Baird, 75 Tex. 256; 

 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Cooper (Ky.), 42 S. W. Rep. 1134. 



