510 CARRIERS OF ANIMALS. 



And a stipulation that suit should be brought within forty 

 days was held unreasonable.^^* 



Taking an injured mule from the cars at the destination 

 and letting it run on the commons there, the shipper re- 

 fusing to receive it, was held not to be removal or mingling 

 within the meaning of the stipulation as to notice.^** 



It must be shown that the company had an officer or 

 station-agent near the place of delivery to whom notice might 

 be given; ^'"' and where the plaintiff has no knowledge of 

 such and no one is named in the contract, the stipulation 

 as to notice has been held unreasonable.^"^ 



Mere knowledge by the agents of the company that the 

 shipper claimed to have lost some of his stock, coupled with 

 a search therefor along the track, does not amount to a 

 waiver of the stipulated notice.^"^ It is otherwise where the 

 agents, with knowledge of the injury, have consented to the 

 removal of the stock before reaching their destination;^"* 

 or, in consequence of an injury in unloading, have returned an 

 animal, free of charge, to the place of shipment; *"* or have 



225. And see Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co. v. McAnulty, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 

 321. 



'"^ Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. Stanley, 89 Tex. 42. And see Gulf, C. & 

 S. F. R. Co. V. Hume, 87 id. 211. 



=" Chic, St. L. & N. O. R. Co. v. Abels, 60 Miss. 1017. 



"" Mo. Pac. R. Co. V. Childers, i Tex. Civ. App. 302; St. Louis, A. & 

 T. R. Co. V. Turner, Ibid. 625; Good v. Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. 

 (Tex.), II S. W. Rep. 854. 



™' Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 

 Rep. 1019; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Short (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 

 id. 142; Baxter v. Louisv., N. A. & C. R. Co., 165 111. 78; Smitha v. 

 Louisville & N. R. Co., 86 Tenn. 198; Engesether v. Gr. North. R. Co., 65 

 Minn. 168. 



See Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. Childers, i Tex. Civ. App. 302; Same v. Paine, 

 Ibid. 621, where it was held that the question of reasonableness was for 

 the jury. 



"^ Case V. Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. R. Co., 11 Ind. App. 517. 



™= Cent. R. Co. v. Pickett, 87 Ga. 734. And see Atchison, T. & S. F. R. 

 Co. V. Temple, 47 Kan. 7; Rice v. Kan. Pac. R. Co., 63 Mo. 314; Wood 

 V. Southern R. Co.. 118 N. C. 1056. 



'" Owen V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.), 9 S. W. Rep. 841. 



