RESTRICTION OF LIABILITY. 479 



With regard to the burden of proof it has been said : "The 

 tmiform holding of the Supreme Court of Ilhnois has been 

 that the carrier must show affirmatively that the restrictions 

 of liability claimed by it were in fact known and assented to 

 by the shipper. This seems, however, to be contrary to the 

 weight of American and English decisions which hold that 

 the fair and honest acceptance of a bill of lading, without dis- 

 sent, raises a presumption that all limitations contained 

 therein were brought to the knowledge of the shipper and 

 agreed to by him." ^^ 



112. Receiving; Loading; Unloading; Delivery The respon- 

 sibility of the carrier extends from the time the animals are 

 received till the cars are unloaded.®* This is true even where 

 a statute provides that the liability shall begin at the time of 

 signing the bill of lading.*^ And where a contract provided 

 that the company should not be liable before the car was 

 loaded and the door fastened, they were, nevertheless, held 

 liable where the lambs drank salt water, negligently allowed 

 to flow in the stock-yard, before they were put on the car, 

 though they did not die till they were in the possession of a 

 connecting carrier.*^ The liability begins with the placing 

 of the animal in a cattle-pen preparatory to shipment, by 

 order of the company's agent, and the fact that the shipper 

 saw the pens, which were weak and rotten, does not prevent 

 recovery.®'^ And where the injury was received in the pens 

 of a connecting carrier after the animals had been tendered to 



'" 38 Cent. L. Jour. 97, citing 3 Wood Railways 1577-78, n. 2, Hutchin- 

 son Carriers, §§ 238-9, etc. 



" Moffat V. Great Western R. Co., iS L- T. N. S. 630. 



Where a horse was injured while the defendant's porter was trying 

 to put it into a box at the railway station, it was held that carriage had 

 commenced: Knox v. Gr. North. R. Co., [1896] 2 I. R. 632. 



•'" Intemat. & G. N. R. Co. v. Dimmit County Pasture Co., 5 Tex. Civ. 

 App. 186. 



" Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Harman (Va.), 22 S. E. Rep. 490. 



"Mason v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 25 Mo. App. 473. And see Galveston, 



