496 CARRIERS OF ANIMALS. 



rier, it has a right to deUver to the latter at once and need not 

 give an opportunity to the shipper to feed and water them, 

 and in a three hours' journey no such opportunity need be 

 given : the carrier has the right to presume the animals are 

 in proper condition when they were shipped and need not 

 feed or water them oftener than would be done by an ordi- 

 narily prudent man with his own stock.^"® But where there 

 is an improper detention, the carrier is liable for an injury 

 from the stock not being watered at the place of detention ;^''^ 

 otherwise, where the shipper especially agrees that in case of 

 accidents, delays, etc., he shall feed and water the animals at 

 his own expense. ^^^ And where the company furnishes a car 

 in which the stock can be fed to a shipper who has agreed to 

 feed them at his own expense, he has no right to have the car 

 stopped but can secure delay only by abandoning his contract 

 or contracting for a longer time.^^^ 



It is not, however, the neghgence of the carrier but the ex- 

 tent of injury likely to flow therefrom and the expense likely 

 to be incurred in an attempt to avert loss, which must be 

 looked to in determining whether a shipper in a railway 

 wreck had the right to rescind the contract of shipment and to 

 refuse to feed and water the stock as he had agreed to do. 

 Where the delay is slight and little injury could result, it is 

 negligence in the shipper or his agent to refuse to feed and 

 water the stock when facilities are furnished by the company 



'™Tex. & Pac. R. Co. v. Stribling (Tex. Civ. App.), 34 S. W. Rep. 1002. 



See Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Ivey (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 id. 321, 

 cited infra. 



™ Harris v. North Ind. R. Co., 20 N. Y. 232. And see Brockway v. 

 Amer. Exp. Co., 168 Mass. 257. 



Where a statute requires the company to feed the stock at the request 

 of the owner and it is their custom to feed animals at the consignor's 

 expense during a delay in the transit, a request will be implied and the 

 company held liable for any loss occasioned by leaving the animals unfed: 

 Curran v. Midland Gr. West. R. Co., [1896] 2 I. R. 183. 



™ Boaz V. Cent. R. Co., 87 Ga. 463. 



""• 111. Cent. R. Co. v. Peterson, 68 Miss. 454. 



