466 CARRIERS OF ANIMALS. 



lien on the horses for the amount of the additional freight.^^ 

 A plea that the way-bill showed that mules were shipped "at 

 a released rate, which was a reduced rate of freight" was held 

 not equivalent to an allegation that the defendant, a connect- 

 ing carrier, accepted the contract of the original carrier re- 

 leasing it and the connecting carriers at their option from 

 liabiHty for damages not caused by negligence.^" Where the 

 defendant is not liable for "anything beyond" its line "except 

 to protect through rate of freight," it is not liable for the re- 

 fusal of the connecting carrier to deliver cattle unless a 

 greater rate of freight is paid.^^ 



The shipper of horses who is present and permits the con- 

 necting carrier to receive his horses and pay advance charges, 

 thus acquiring a lien, cannot recoup the damages done to the 

 horses by the prior carrier against such lien, though the con- 

 necting carrier knew of the damages and of the shipper's 

 intention to demand compensation from the prior car- 

 rier.^* 



In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the injury is 

 presumed to have taken place on the line of the last carrier.^® 

 And where there is no special contract, the burden is not on 

 the shipper to show on what line the injury occurred, though 

 a person accompanied the cattle;^" otherwise, where the 

 liability is expressly limited.^^ 



Where there is a stipulation in the contract that the shipper 

 may accompany the stock free of charge, this can be availed 



-° Crossan v. N. Y. & N. E. R. Co., 149 Mass. 196. And see Lewis v. 

 Richmond & D. R. Co., 25 S. C. 249. 



™ Western R. Co. of Ala. v. Harwell, 97 Ala. 341. 



" Little Rock & Ft. S. R. Co. v. Odom, 63 Ark. 326. 



'' St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Lear, 54 Ark. 399. 



" Paramore v. Western R. Co., 53 Ga. 383; Tex. & Pac. R. Co. v. Barn- 

 hart, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 601. 



=° Tex. & Pac. R. Co. v. Tom Green County Cattle Co. (Xex. Civ. App.), 

 38 S. W. Rep. 1 138. 



"St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Vaughan (Tex. Civ. App.), 41 S. W. 

 Rep. 415- 



