DELAY AND ACCIDENT. 503 



is liable.^^*' And where an express company undertakes to 

 transport horses with knowledge that floods have obstructed 

 a portion of its route, they are not such an act of God as will 

 relieve the company from an injury sustained by the horses 

 while they were being conveyed over another route.^^^ 



Where, owing to atmospheric or other influences, on 

 the telegraph wires, beyond the carrier's control, the en- 

 gineer failed to receive orders to move a train, the company 

 was held not liable for delay in delivering the stock, whether 

 the failure of the wires was to be attributed to the act of God 

 or not.^^^ So, the company was held not liable in Michigan 

 where the live-stock could not have been taken on from a 

 way-station without an extra engine, owing to an unavoid- 

 able exigency.^^^ 



A strike attaining sufficient proportions tO' be put down by 

 the military power of the State was held to be a sufficient ex- 

 cuse for a company's not carrying out a contract to receive 

 and carry live-stock.^^* And where the shipper assumed the 

 risks of transportation and agreed that the company should 

 not be responsible for delays at the terminal points, it was 

 held that the company was not responsible for a delay caused 

 by a riot, whereby some of the animals fell sick and died.^^^ 

 Nor was the carrier held liable, under similar circumstances, 

 where the delays were caused by the public enemy and the 

 necessary employment of the road in the service of the Gov- 

 ernment.^*® 



"""Mo., K. & T. R. Co. Receivers v. Olive (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S. W. 

 Rep. 526. 



''' Adams Exp. Co. v. Jackson, 92 Tenn. 326. 



"'^ Internat. & G. N. R. Co. v. Hynes, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 20. 



™ Mich. S. & N. I. R. Co. v. McDonough, 21 Mich. 165. 



""'Pittsb., Cine. & St. L. R. Co. v. Hollowell, 65 Ind. 188. And see 

 Internat. & G. N. R. Co. v. Tisdale, 74 Tex. 8. 



But evidence of a strike at the point of destination cannot be intro- 

 duced under the general denial: St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Pum- 

 phrey (Tex. Civ. App.), 42 S. W. Rep. 246. 



""> Bartlett v. Pittsb., C. & St. L. R. Co., 94 Ind. 281. 



"° Bankard v. Bait. & O. R. Co., 34 Md. 197- 



