DELAY AND ACCIDENT. 499 



proper appliances for transporting stock is no defence.^^* 

 Nor that it is caused by a failure of the water supply for the 

 operation of trains due to a drought known to the carrier at 

 the time the contract was made.^^" Nor that it was caused by 

 a break on the track due to a storm on a day later than that 

 on which the shipment was to have been made.^^* And the 

 fact that the connecting carrier was unprepared to continue 

 the transportation with due promptness is no excuse for the 

 neglect of the first carrier to observe diligence in forwarding 

 the stock. ^-^ The receipt of the animals by the company is 

 equivalent to an obligation to transport them without un- 

 necessary delay.^^® The company is bound to inform the 

 shipper within a reasonable time whether it can furnish cars, 

 and if the shipper, relying on its contract, has the stock ready 

 and there are no cars, the company is liable.^^^ An agree- 

 ment by a station-agent to transport cattle at a given time is 

 binding, though not within the scope of his authority, 

 unless the shipper has notice of that fact.^^" 



Where the company transports the cattle within a reason- 

 able time but they do not reach their destination at the time 



to the result: Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Herring (Tex. Civ. App.), 

 36 S. W. Rep. 129, 



A company in partnership with another may be sued with the latter 

 for delay in the countv in which the latter operates its road though the 

 former does not: San Antonio & A. P. R. Co. v. Graves (Tex. Civ. App.), 

 49 S. W. Rep. 1 103. 



=" Tucker v. Pac. R. Co., 50 Mo. 385. 



==' Cine, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. v. Webb (Ky.), 46 S. W. Rep. 11. 



-" Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. McCorquodale, 71 Tex. 41. And see Gann 

 V. Chic. Great Western R. Co., 72 Mo. App. 34- 



"' Alexander v. Pa. R. Co., 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 183. 



='' Pruitt V. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 62 Mo. 527; Cine, I., St. L. & 

 C. R. Co. V. Case, 122 Ind. 310. 



'=' Ayres v. Chic. & N. R. Co., 71 Wis. 372. And see § 113, supra. 



What is a "reasonable time" for furnishing cars is a qjiestion of fact 

 for the jury: Davis v. Tex. & Pac. R. Co. (Tex.), 44 S. W. Rep. 822. 



=™ Gann v. Chic. Great Western R. Co., 72 Mo. App. 34; Gulf, C. & 

 S. F. R. Co. V. Hume, 87 Tex. 211; Pittsb., C, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. 

 Racer, 10 Ind. App. 503. 



