468 CARRIERS OF ANIMALS. 



Standing or walking on the top of a moving car.^'^ But this 

 provision may be waived. ^^ 



It has been held that, in the absence of a special contract 

 by the carrier to look after the stock, a shipper who neglects 

 to send a care-taker assumes all damages caused by their dis- 

 position to crowd and injure one another.^^ A contract that 

 the plaintiff should accompany and take care of the stock 

 may be pleaded, though the action sounds in tort.*" Cattle- 

 owners on a ship were held not entitled to share in a salvage 

 reward for saving derelict, they not assisting personally in 

 any way.*^ 



A man sent by the owner of horses with the car that con- 

 tained them, who had the money to pay for the freight, has 

 an implied authority to make any reasonable contract for the 

 shipment of the horses to their final destination, beyond the 

 point where the owner's contract terminates.*^ 



Where it is impossible to carry out the original contract, 

 owing to a strike of the carrier's employees, an agent of the 

 carrier may make a new contract, imposing a greater obliga- 

 tion on it, there being no other consideration than that the 

 shipper relieves the agent of the necessity of a personal super- 

 vision of the stock. *^ 



" Ft. Scott, W. & W. R. Co. V. Sparks, 55 Kan. 288. And see Mobile 

 & O. R. Co. V. Bogle (Tenn.), 46 S. W. Rep. 760; Walker v. Green, infra. 



=' Mo., K. & T. R. Co. V. Cook, 8 Tex. Civ. App. "376. And see 111. 

 Cent. R. Co. v. Beebe, supra; Tex. & Pac. R. Co. v. Reader, 170 U. S. 

 530; Chic, R. I. & P. R. Co. V. Lee, 92 Fed. Rep. 318. 



But permission by the trainmen to ride in the freight car is no excuse: 

 Walker v. Green (Kan.), 56 Pac. Rep. 477. 



" Heller v. Chic. & G. T. R. Co., 109 Mich. 53. And see Terre Haute 

 & L. R. Co. V. Sherwood, 132 Ind. 129. 



" Oxley V. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co., 65 Mo. 629. See Un. Pac. R. 

 Co. V. Langan, 52 Neb. 105, as to the breach of such a contract. 



" The Coriolanus, 15 P. D. 103. 



" Armstrong v. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 53 Minn. 183. 



So, on behalf of the carrier, a station agent has authority to make a 

 contract within the scope of his employment: Wilson v. Mo. Pac. R. 

 Co., 66 Mo. App. 388. 



" Carstens v. Burleigh (Wash.), 55 Pac. Rep. 221. 



