490 CARRIERS or ANIMALS. 



The carrier is liable though the car accepted by it belongs 

 to another company"* or to the owner of the animals.^''* But 

 where hogs were shipped in the owner's care, the company 

 not to be liable for loss from jumping out except by collision 

 or running off the track, and the owner refused to use the 

 carrier's cars but used those of another company, the former 

 were held not liable for the escape of hogs by reason of a de- 

 fective door-fastening of which they did not know/'^*' 



A car for the transportation of horses and mules which is 

 liable to be broken by slight kicks is not reasonably safe.^^^ 

 But the carrier is not bound to provide cars strong enough to 

 transport safely animals that are vicious and unmanageable 

 but only such as are ordinarily unruly. ^'^^ Where without in- 

 spection a horse was put in a car one door of which could not 

 be closed, the company was held guilty of gross negligence. ^'^^ 

 But where the owner of the animals found the car door in a 

 weak and unsafe condition but did not inform the company's 

 agent, it was held that the company was not liable.^''^* 



A statute requiring a company to furnish double-decked 

 cars for carrying sheep, when requested, has been held to be 

 constitutional.^^^ A statute requiring a company to furnish 

 suitable cars, does not authorize a penalty for failure to fur- 



"" Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Dies, supra; Wallingford v. Columbia & 

 G. R. Co., 26 S. C. 258; Combe v. London & S. W. R. Co., 31 L T 

 N. S. 613. 



"" Fordyce v. McFlynn, 56 Ark. 424. 



™ 111. Cent. R. Co. v. Hall, 58 111. 409. 



"' Betts V. Chic., R. I. & P. R. Co., 92 la. 343. And see Smith v. New- 

 Haven & N. R. Co., 12 Allen (Mass.) 531. 



With regard to mules it was said in 111, Cent. R. Co. v. Teams, 75 Miss. 

 147: "Common observation and the experience of mankind at all familiar 

 with the capacity for gymnastics on the part of this hybrid warn us not 

 to place reliance in mere opinions of witnesses on this point [i. e., their 

 being overcrowded]." 



™ Selby V. Wilmington & W. R. Co., 113 N. C. 588. 



"» Root V. N. Y. & N. E. R. Co., 83 Hun (N. Y.) in. 



"* Betts V. Farmers' Loan & T. Co., 21 Wis. 80. 



"' Emerson v. St. L. & H. R. Co., in Mo. 161. 



