494 CARRIERS OF ANIMALS. 



nishing cars according to agreement."^ But it lias been 

 held that if the company has sufficient cars to meet ordinary 

 demands and there is an unusual demand and it furnishes 

 them as soon as it can, consistently with the rights of other 

 shippers, it is not liable ; but that it is the company's duty to 

 inform the shipper within a reasonable time if it is unable to 

 furnish cars, — otherwise, if he is ready with the stock, it will 

 be liable.i»« 



The carrier is not liable for an injury to an animal caused 

 by the improper interference of the shipper or his agent with 

 the management of the car by the carrier's employees. ^^'^ 

 Thus, where horses were placed in the defendant's cars and 

 the latter's agent ordered a servant to lock the door and he 

 was prevented from doing so by the plaintiff's agent and some 

 of the horses were lost, it was held that the defendant was not 

 guilty of negligence in failing to lock the door, and conse- 

 quently was not liable.^^* 



A traveller driving his horse and wagon on a ferry-boat 

 and retaining custody of the horse is bound to use ordinary 

 care, and if he leaves the horse and it becomes frightened and 

 breaks a chain and is drowned, the owners of the ferry are not 

 liable."9 The fact that the plaintifif took his horse on the 

 platform of a car that he knew to be unsafe was held not to 

 show contributory negligence as a matter of law.^"" 



A word may be said in this place as to injuries in trans- 

 portation, caused not to, but by, animals, i. e., by vermin. It 

 was held in England that rats which gnawed a hole in a pipe 



"" Cross V. McFaden, i Tex. Civ. App. 461 ; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. 

 V. Hume, 87 Tex. 211. 



But see III. Cent. R. Co. v. Haynes, 64 Miss. 604. 



'» Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Racer, 5 Ind. App. 209. And 

 see § irs, infra. 



"' Roderick v. B. & O. R. Co., 7 W. Va. 54. 



"" Lee V. Raleigh & G. R. Co., 72 N. C. 236. 



"'White V. Winnisimmet Co., 7 Cush. (Mass.) 155. And see Hoboken 

 Land & Imp. Co. v. Lally, 48 N. J. L. 604. 



=°° Gulf, C. & S, F. R. Co. V. Wood (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. Rep. 715. 



