482 CARRIERS OP ANIMALS. 



ferryman is liable for not providing proper means for landing 

 a horse from his boat, though the animal is under its owner's 

 charge."^ But a company need not provide fences or guards 

 at the station where the animals are landed between the tracks 

 and the station-yard so as to prevent them from straying on 

 to the former.^ '^ Where an animal was kept on a plank floor 

 for some days after reaching its destination, in an action for 

 negligence in so doing it was held error to exclude evidence 

 that it was customary to do it in that place. ^^^ 



Where the shipper furnishes and loads his own car, the 

 carrier is not liable for negligent loading, though it was the 

 duty of its officers to see that the loading was properly 

 done.-'^* And where the agent of the owner of race-horses in- 

 sisted upon loading the car as he thought best, owing to diffi- 

 culty in the loading, the company were held not responsible 

 for a resulting injury."^ Where cattle shipped upon an 

 ocean steamer in hot weather were by the shipper's act placed 

 between decks and they grew sick and died, it was held that 

 no negligence was to be presumed in the carrier."® Where 

 the shipper had notice that the cars were being overloaded, 

 he cannot recover damages therefor, though he had con- 

 tracted for a sufficient number of cars to hold the animals that 

 were being loaded."'^ So, a shipper who asks for an addi- 

 tional car on the day of shipment and crowds his cattle into 



the carrier placed them, the latter is liable as an insurer without regard 

 to negligence: Tex. & Pac. R. Co. v. Turner (Tex. Civ. App.), 37 S. W. 

 Rep. 643. 



'" Willoughby v. Horridge, 12 C. B. 742. 



"^ Roberts v. Great Western R. Co., 4 C. B. N. S. 506. 



As to negligence in turning unloaded stock on an unprotected lot in cold 

 weather, see Cooper v. Raleigh & G. R. Co. (Ga.), 30 S. E. Rep. 731. 



"' Moses V. Port Townsend S. R. Co., s Wash. 595. 



"•Fordyce v. McFlynn, 56 Ark. 424. And see Mo. Pac. R. Co. v 

 Edwards, 78 Tex. 307; East Tenn. & G. R. Co. v Whittle 27 Ga ■;•?■; 



"° Bowie V. B. & O. R. Co., i MacArth. (D. C.) 94. ' 



""The Powhatan, 21 Blatch. C. Ct. (U. S.) 8. 



'"Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co. v. Word (Tex. Civ. App.) 32 S W 

 Rep. 14. ^^ ' ^ ->■»». 



