DELAY AND ACCIDENT. 501 



this has been denied, where the shipment is within a reason- 

 able tirae.^^*' The company was held liable where the train 

 was side-tracked for six hours to let another train pass;^^'' 

 also where the stock train was allowed to pass without taking 

 the car containing the cattle so that they could not get to 

 their destination in time for the required market.^^^ 



If the company fails to ship the stock by passenger service, 

 as agreed upon, and ships it by freight service, it is responsi- 

 ble for injuries resulting from the delay and the rougher serv- 

 ice and cannot avail itself of a stipulation relieving it from 

 liability as an insurer at common law.^^^ But in West Vir- 

 ginia it was held that, under counts against the defendant 

 merely as a carrier or bailee of cattle, the shipper cannot re- 

 cover for losses resulting from a misrepresentation of the de- 

 fendant's agent whereby the former was induced to ship in a 

 slow instead of a fast train.^*" 



A company is liable for a delay on a connecting road when 

 it has contracted to deliver the cattle at a certain point, un- 

 less there is a special contract exempting it from such lia- 

 bility.2" 



A carrier cannot excuse itself for the delay on the ground 

 that it was caused by an unusual rush of business; ^*^ though 

 in Mississippi there is a decision to the contrary.^*^ And an 

 unconstitutional statute prohibiting the carrying of Texas 

 cattle is no excuse for refusal or delay on the part of the car- 

 rier.2** The shipper is, however, bound by the ordinary 



''" Pennsylvania Co. v. Clark, 2 Ind. App. 146. 

 ™ Douglass V. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 53 Mo. App. 473. 

 ''' 111. Cent. R. Co. v. Simmons, 49 HI. App. 443. 

 ="■ Pavitt V. Lehigh Val. R. Co., 153 Pa. St. 302. 

 "'° Maslin v. B. & O. R. Co., 14 W. Va. 180. 

 '" Toledo, W. & W. R. Co. v. Lockhart, 71 111. 627. 

 ""■ Internal. & G. N. R. Co. v. Anderson, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 8; Gulf, C. 

 & S. F. R. Co. V. McAulay (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. Rep. 475- 

 See also § 113, supra. 

 =" 111. Cent. R. Co. v. Haynes, 64 Miss. 604. 

 -" Chic. & A. R. Co. V. Erickson, 91 HI- 6i3- 



