NOTICK. 511 



taken the animal after the injury to a distant point and 

 killed it and the shipper has had no means of learning of the 

 injm-y within the designated time.^"' But where a company 

 deviates from its contract to transport live-stock by passenger 

 service and the animals are injured by the delay and rougher 

 service, this deviation does not relieve the shipper from giving 

 notice of his claim for damages according to agreement.^"" 



118. Evidence — It is, of course, essential to recovery that 

 the shipper should show in the first place that his animals 

 were delivered to the carrier and that they were lost or dam- 

 aged in the course of transportation.*"'^ In the latter case, 

 more evidence seems to be required in the case of live-stock 

 and other property subject to inherent defects than in the 

 case of inanimate property in general: the shipper must prove 

 to some extent that the injury has not resulted from the 

 inherent defect.^*** Thus, where a horse in apparently good 

 condition was shipped on a steamer and delivered in a dying 

 condition, but without any external injury, it was held that 

 some negligence on the part of the carrier must be shown 

 by the shipper before the burden would be on the former 

 to show that he was in no fault. , "When the damage to the 

 thing shipped is apparently the result of its inherent nature 

 or inherent defects, the shipper must show something more 

 than its damaged condition before the carrier can be called 

 on to explain." ^"^ And in a similar case in England where 

 a quiet horse was found injured when there had been no acci- 



"* Richardson v. Chic. & A. R. Co., 62 Mo. App. i; Same v. Same 

 (Mo.), so S. W. Rep. 782. 



'" Pavitt V. Lehigh Val. R. Co., 153 Pa. St. 302- 



"^ Hutchinson Carriers §§ 759, 764- 



A shipping receipt reciting the shipment of cattle may be contradicted 

 by the carrier's showing that it never received the cattle: Lake Shore 

 & M. S. R. Co. V. Nat. Live-Stock Bk., 178 111. S«5: 



"" Hutchinson Carriers § 768. 



""Hussey v. The Saragossa, 3 Woods C. Ct. (U. S.) 380. And see 

 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Wathen (Ky.), 49 S. W. Rep. 185. 



