486 CAKEIERS OF ANIMALS. 



at his own expense, who is guilty of any negligence or wrong 

 act therein, cannot recover against the carrier : as if he neg- 

 ligently puts hay into the car which takes fire.^" But where 

 he negligently leaves a horse untied, if the carrier moves the 

 car while the animal is loose, it is still liable if the injury was 

 one likely to result from the circumstances."^ In another 

 case where the carrier was not to be liable for loss "by jump- 

 ing from cars" and the plaintifif put the horse in the car 

 and tied it near a door which he left open, it was held that 

 though it was, perhaps, negligence in the carrier to move the 

 car with the door open, yet the plaintifif was guilty of contrib- 

 utory negligence and could not recover.^^^ Where the injury 

 to an animal under the control of the shipper's agent results 

 from the latter's act, as by his entering the car with a lantern 

 and its taking fire, the carrier is not liable, irrespective of the 

 question of negligence on the agent's part.^*** 



The shipper should load so that the train will not be un- 

 necessarily delayed. -^^^ Though he may contract to load, un- 

 load and reload at his own risk, this is no defence where the 

 unloading and loading of cars at feeding stations were act- 

 ually assumed by the carrier's employees. ^*^ And where the 

 agent at a transfer station who has authority to keep the 

 cattle in the original cars or to transfer them, tells the shipper 

 there will be no change, this relieves the latter of his duty by 

 bill of lading.^*^ 



In order to avoid the injurious consequences of a long 

 journey, it is provided in § 4386 of the Revised Statutes of the 

 United States that in interstate shipments of live-stock any 



"' Pratt V. Ogdensburg & L. C. R. Co., 102 Mass. 557. 

 '^ Doan V. St. Louis, K. & N. R. Co., 38 Mo. App. 408. 

 '"Hutchinson v. Chic, St. P., M. & O. R., 37 Minn. 524. And 

 see Newby v. Chic, R. I. & P. R. Co., 19 Mo. App. 391. 

 '" Hart V. Chic. & N. R. Co., 69 la. 485. 

 '" Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Godman, 104 Ind. 490. 

 "" Mo. Pac. R. Co. V. Kingsbury (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. Rep. 322. 

 See Fordyce v. McFlynn, 56 Ark. 424. 

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



