480 CAKRIEKS OF ANIMALS. 



the defendant company but before they were loaded on their 

 cars, the latter were held liable in the absence of a legal ex- 

 cuse for not receiving them at the time of tender.** 



The carrier is obliged to provide facilities for receiving 

 stock, such as enclosed yards.^* It is also bound to furnish 

 proper places and appliances for loading and unloading the 

 animals. Thus the delivery of a horse at a chute designated 

 by the company's agent for use in loading the car is sufficient 

 to charge the company if the chute is rotten, and a subse- 

 quent contract of shipment exempting the defendant from 

 liability for loss by loading, etc., does not relieve the latter 

 from liability and is inadmissible in evidence.^*"* And the 

 company is liable for an injury resulting from an accumula- 

 tion of ice on the floor of the chute after the lapse of suffi- 

 cient time since the storm to remove it in, and the shipper is 

 not guilty of contributory negligence by reason of his failure 

 to put ashes or sand on such floor.^**^ Where a horse is in- 

 jured by reason of a defect in the platform used for loading, 

 the company if under any circumstances excusable, are not 

 so unless they used full diligence to discover any defect before 

 exposing the animal to the risk of injury .^"^ 



Where the company are required by statute to erect suit- 

 able freight buildings, they cannot avoid liability by showing 



H. & S. A. R. Co. V. Jackson (Tex. Civ. App.), 37 S. W. Rep. 255- Mo 

 K. & T. R. Co. V. Byrne (Ind. Ty.), 49 id. 41. 



Where cattle are frightened by a train and escape through a gate of the 

 stock-pen which is negligently out of repair, this negligence is the prox- 

 imate cause of a resulting injury to the cattle, but not to the shipper 

 personally: Tex. & Pac. R. Co. v. Bigham, 90 Tex. 223. 

 " Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. Godair, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 514. 

 " Covington Stock- Yards Co. v. Keith, 139 U. S. 128. 



""McCulIough V. Wabash West. R. Co., 34 Mo. App. 23. And see 

 Rooth V. North-Eastern R. Co., L. R. 2 Ex. 173. 



That failure to have a chute at a station is not necessarily negligence, 

 see Regan v. Adams Exp. Co., 49 La. Ann. 1579. 



"^ Kincaid v. Kan. City, C. & S. R. Co., 62 Mo. App. 365 And see 

 White V. Cine, N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 89 Ky. 478. 



"" E. Tenn., V. & G. R. Co. v. Herrman, 92 Ga. 384. 



