498 CARRIERS OF ANIMALS. 



up to the arrival at the port of destination but not for further 

 damages through the absence of a proper supply at that port. 

 It is not justified in sailing without taking sufficient fodder for 

 cattle carried, according to agreement, by reason of an alleged 

 remark of their drover that the fodder was sufficient, especially 

 where the vessel waits long enough to have it brought aboard 

 and the cattle owners demand that that be done.^^* 



A company is not liable for special damages for delay in the 

 transportation of food for cattle, as a result of which the 

 cattle were without food for several days, where the company 

 was not aware at the time the contract was executed that 

 such special damages would arise from delay.^^* 



If water is so scarce on the line that it cannot be procured 

 for the animals, the company should inform the shippers of 

 the fact beforehand, otherwise they are liable if death results. 

 It is prima facie negligence in the company to permit a 

 pump at a station to be out of repair, under such circum- 

 stances.^^^ 



A shipping contract to carry live-stock from an interior 

 station in one State to a station in another State is an inter- 

 state contract, and where there is a failure to feed and water 

 the stock in either State there is no liability to a penalty under 

 a statute of that State.^^^ 



115. Delay and Accident — A carrier is liable for injuries to 

 animals resulting from unreasonable- delay in transporta- 

 tion.223 And the fact that the delay is caused by lack of 



'"'The Connemara, 57 Fed. Rep. 314. 



"-' Mo., K. & T. R. Co. V. Belcher, 89 Tex. 428. 



'=' Toledo, W. & W. R. Co. v. Thompson, 71 111. 434. 



=- Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. Gray, 87 Tex. 312; Gulf, C, & S. F. R. Co. 

 v. Gann, 8 Tex. Civ. Ajip. 620. 



"» Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. Ellison, 70 Tex. 491 ; Mo. Pae. R. Co. v. 

 Harris, 67 id. 166; Belcher v. Mo., K. & T. R. Co. (Tex.), 50 S. W. Rep; 

 SS9; Harris v. North Ind. R. Co., 20 N. Y. 232; Richmond & D. R. Co' 

 V. Trousdale, 99 Ala. 389. 



Though the inherent propensities of the animals may have contributed 



