516 CARRIERS OF ANIMALS. 



The evidence need not show the exact number of the dead 

 and injured animals where this can be computed-^^^ And 

 where cattle injured by the perils of the sea are thrown over- 

 board with others not so injured, the failure of the respondent 

 to prove the precise number that were injured does not make 

 him responsible for all that were lost.^ss The actual market 

 value need not be alleged; and where the animals have no 

 market value at the place of destination proof of their intrmsic 

 value is admissiblc^'^* So is proof of their cost, though that 

 is not conclusive. ^^^ 



119. Damages Where animals have been injured in trans- 

 portation the measure of damages in an action against the 

 carrier is the difference, after deducting the cost of trans- 

 portation, between their market value at the point of des- 

 tination when they were actually delivered and what it would 

 have been but for the injury, with interest and incidental 

 expenses.^^" And this is so, though the intention was to 

 pasture them at the destination and not to sell them at 

 once.^'^^ But where the owner keeps the injured cattle until 

 they recover, the measure of damages is the actual damage 



""' Mo. Pac. R. Co. V. Edwards, 78 Tex. 307. 



™ Brauer v. Corapania de Navigii. La Flecha, 35 U. S. App. 44. af- 

 firmed in Compania de Navign, La Flecha v. Brauer, t68 U. S. 104. 



'"'Mo., K. & T. R. Co. V. Chittim (Tex. Civ. App.), 40 S. W. Rep. 23. 

 And see Lachner Bros. v. Adams Exp. Co., 72 Mo. App. 13, cited supra. 



See in general, in this subject, Hutchinson Carriers §§ 759-768 a. 



°™ Pacific Exp. Co. V. Lothrop (Tex. Civ. App.), 49 S. W. Rep. 898. 



'^ Hutchinson Carriers § 770 a; N. Y., L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Estill, 147 

 U. S. 591; E. Tenn., V. & G. R. Co. v. Hale, 85 Tenn. 69; Galveston, H. 

 & S. A. R. Co. V. Johnson (Tex.), 19 S. W. Rep. 867; Internat. & G. N. 

 R. Co. V. Dimmit Co. Pasture Co., 5 Tex. Civ. App. 186; Tex. & Pac. R. 

 Co. V. Arnold (Tex. Civ. App.), 40 S. W. Rep. 829; Smith v. New Haven 

 & N. R. Co., 12 Allen (Mass.) 531; St. Louis, L M. & S. R. Co., v. Des- 

 hong, 63 Ark. 443. 



Evidence of what the animals sold for at a place other than their des- 

 tination sonie time after their arrival is inadmissible: San Antonio & A. 

 P. R. Co. V. Wright (Tex. Civ. App.), 49 S. W. Rep. 147. 



»" Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. Stanley, 89 Tex. 42. 



