DELAY AND ACCIDENT. 505 



used for shelter, it was held that the damage was not due to 

 inevitable accident but to want of proper care and that the 

 fact that the plaintifif's servant accompanied the cattle on a 

 free pass did not exempt the defendant from liability for the 

 negligence of its servants.^^B So, where a shipment made in 

 January was delayed by the freezing of the pipes between the 

 tank and the boiler of the engine, it was held that the carrier 

 was liable, as such freezing was not "caused by stress of 

 weather" within the meaning of the exception in the con- 

 tract.^®* 



Where a vessel struck a hidden obstruction and filled with 

 water and a cabin containing bees floated to the shore, but no 

 efifort was made by the master to use care in saving them, 

 the steamboat line was held liable for damage to them, 

 though the vessel was insured and was abandoned to the 

 underwriters as a total loss.^*^ And the owners of a steam- 

 boat were held liable for the loss of animals which, at a diffi- 

 cult point of the navigation, were sent on shore to lighten the 

 boat and strayed away through the negligence of those in 

 charge of the boat.^®* 



116. Injuries Due to the Nature and Condition of Animals. — 



The carrier, as has already been said, is not an insurer against 

 or liable for injury to animals resulting from their nature and 

 propensities, -without any negligence on his part; ^®^ nor is 



=* Feinberg v. Del., L. & W. R. Co., 52 N. J. L. 451. 



^ Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Heath (Ind. App.), 53 N. E. 

 Rep. 198. 



'" Bixby V. Deemar, 54 Fed. Rep. 718. 



™ Pitre V. Offutt, 21 La. Ann. 679, where it was held that a custom that 

 the ship took no risks must be brought to the knowledge of the shipper 

 to constitute a good defence. 



'" See § no, supra; Coupland v. Housatonic R. Co., 61 Conn. 531; Black 

 V. Chic, B. & Q. R. Co., 30 Neb. 197; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Wynn, 

 88 Tenn. 320; Hall v. Renfro, 3 Mete. (Ky.) 51; HI- Cent. R. Co. v. Brels- 

 ford, 13 111. App. 251; Mynard v. Syracuse, B. & N. Y. R. Co., 71 N. Y. 

 180; Penn v. Buffalo & E. R. Co., 49 id. 204; Heyman v. P. & R. R. Co., 

 54 N. Y. Super. Ct. 158; Bamberg v. So. Car. R. Co., 9 S. C. 61; McCoy 



