INJURIES DUE TO NATURE OF ANIMALS. 507 



In Texas it has been held that where a part of the stock 

 were mares in foal the company were liable only for failure 

 to exercise reasonable care ; ^'^^ and in a later case between 

 the same parties it was held that where a mare in foal was in- 

 jured, the common carrier was not liable unless it had notice 

 to that efifect or of facts sufficient to charge it with knowledge 

 of her condition.^'''^ But in Iowa a shipper was held not to 

 be bound to inform the carrier that a cow was about eight 

 months gone with calf.^^* And in a Federal case where 

 cattle miscarried and sufifered an impairment in their breed- 

 ing capacity through a collision, it was held that the defend- 

 ant's liability for damages for negligence was not lessened by 

 the fact that he had received no notice that they were in- 

 tended for breeding purposes, especially as they were being 

 shipped away from the market for beef cattle. ^^^ And this 

 view was sustained by the Supreme Court which held that 

 where cows with calf were damaged by abortions caused by 

 the carrier's negligence, in order to charge the latter it was 

 not necessary to show that it had notice that the cows were 

 with calf, there being nothing to show that any special or un- 

 usual care was requisite by reason of their being pregnant; 

 and it was held not material whether the plaintiffs intended to 

 keep the cattle upon their farms for breeding purposes or to 

 sell them on the market.^*" 



A stipulation that a shipper should furnish each conductor 

 a statement of the condition of the cattle and that failure to 

 do so would be conclusive evidence of their good condition, 

 was held unreasonable.^^^ A written statement as to the good 

 condition of the animals made by the shipper's agents in 

 transit does not estop him from showing that it is not true. 



^' Mo. Pac. R. Co. V. Fagan, 72 Tex. 127. 



"' Mo. Pac. R. Co. V. Fagan (Tex. Civ. App.), 27 S. W. Rep. 887. 



™ McCune v. B., C. R. & N. R. Co., 52 la. 600. 



"» Estill V. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 849- 



"^ N. Y., L. E. & W. R. Co. V. Estill, 147 U. S. SPi- 



=" Mo., K. & T. R. Co. V. Carter, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 677. 



