500 CARKIERS OF ANIMALS. 



designed by the shipper, the company is not liable unless it 

 has been notified of such design at the time the cattle were 

 received.^" A contract as to what shall constitute a reason- 

 able time for transportation and that the carrier shall not be 

 liable if the stock are transported within that time is not a 

 contract to transport at or within a fixed time, but is a con- 

 tract that, if the transportation is within such time, the car- 

 rier shall not be liable for damages unless the delay is caused 

 by negligence.^-'^ 



The carrier is liable for delay caused by the presentation 

 for shipment of cattle belonging to a third person and the use 

 of the cars contracted for to ship the latter's cattle, the inspec- 

 tion of the plaintiff's cattle having been sufficiently completed 

 to warrant shipment without delay.^^^ And where the owner 

 assumed all risks of loss from loading, unloading and convey- 

 ance and the carriers did not undertake to forward by a par- 

 ticular train or at a specified hour and were not to be re- 

 sponsible for delivery within a certain time or for a particular 

 market, this was held not to exempt the carriers from liability 

 for discrimination in favor of other freight by which the cars 

 were placed on a side track where the cattle could not be un- 

 loaded, fed or watered and where they remained for two or 

 three days : this was not negligence in the performance of the 

 contract but an entire abandonment of all effort to perform 

 it for the time and constituted a breach thereof.^^* 



It has been held to be the duty of the carrier to transport 

 live-stock by the first train after they are loaded f^^ though 



^"^ Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Bryan (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 

 Rep. 98. And see Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Baugh (Tex. Civ. App.), 

 42 id. 245. See, as to dogs sent to a show, Welch v. Great Western R. 

 Co. (Co. Ct. case), 106 L. T. 218. 



"" Blanchard v. Chic. & A. R. Co., 60 Mo. App. 267. 



"^ Internat. & G. N. R. Co. Receivers v. Wright, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 198. 



'=' Keeney v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 47 N. Y. 525. 



=== 111. Cent. R. Co. v. Waters, 41 111. 73. 



The omission of a train on account of scarcity of freight, without notice 

 to the shipper, is no defence: Kan. & A. V. R. Co. v. Ayers, 63 Ark. 331, 



