484 CARRIERS OF ANIMALS. 



condition of the hogs required it and the animals were injured 

 by the refusal of the conductor to do so, an instruction to find 

 for the defendant if the car reached its destination in a reason- 

 able time was held erroneous.^ ^^ If horses are not unloaded 

 at the time agreed on by the company's freight agent, the fact 

 that the conductor before starting stated to the owner that he 

 did not think they could be unloaded at that time does not 

 relieve the company from liability. ^^^ 



Where the company transfer cattle to the car of another 

 line without giving the shipper an opportunity of attending 

 to the loading, they are liable for not furnishing suiBcient bed- 

 ding and partitions whereby injury results.^^^ Cattle may 

 be unloaded by a connecting carrier, if there is no provision 

 in the contract to the contrary, and the men in charge of 

 them have not the right to decide when this is to be done. If 

 after they are unloaded they are seized to pay a fine imposed 

 upon the owner, the carrier is not liable therefor as the dam- 

 ages are too remote.^^'^ If the shipper unloads the stock be- 

 tween the points of shipment named in the bill of lading and 

 takes it out of the possession of the carrier for the purpose of 

 feeding it, this does not render it subject to seizure by his 

 creditors as against a transferee of the bill of lading.^^^ 

 Where cattle when they are unloaded to be fed are lost by 

 being mingled with other cattle and afterwards loaded in the 

 wrong car, the company is liable, its agents having exclusive 

 charge of them during the unloading and loading.^^s 



The carrier must deliver the animals to the person desig- 

 nated by the terms of shipment or to his order at the place 

 of destination, and is liable if they are delivered to one not en- 

 titled to receive them.^^o j^. j^^^^ ^^^^ however, hunt up the 



"* Johnson v. Ala. & V. R. Co., 69 Miss. 191. 



"° Corbett v. Chic, St. P., M. & O. R. Co., 86 Wis. 82. 



"° Ala. G. S. R. Co. v. Thomas, 89 Ala. 294. 



'"' McAlister v. Chic, R. I. & P. R. Co., 74 Mo. 351. 



""^ Lewis V. Springville Bkg. Co., 166 111. 311. 



"° Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Sutherland, 89 Va. 703. 



"° North Pa. R. Co. v. Com. Nat. Bk., 123 U. S. 727 



