DAMAGES. 519 



admissible to show a decline in the market value between the 

 time of arrival and the time of sale.^^^ 



It has been held in Texas that where a petition does not ask 

 for damages resulting from a fall in the market, evidence 

 tending to show such a fall and consequent loss is inadmis- 

 sible.^^^ And in Missourt it was held that it must be averred in 

 the petition that the shipper informed the agent or that he 

 knew at the time that the stock were designed for sale in 

 market at the point of destination : such knowledge may be 

 inferred from all the circumstances, but must be alleged. ^^* 

 And similar proof was required in a Maryland case.^"* 



The fact that the loss owing to the depreciation in the 

 market did not occur while the animals were in the carrier's 

 possession is not material, if the price fell while they were in 

 transit and the loss is the direct consequence of the carrier's 

 delay.*^^ Where there is no difiference in market values the 

 plaintiff can recover only for injury in fitness for market 

 caused by the delay, and the cost of feeding and caring for the 

 stock in the meantime.^^^ And a shipper cannot recover if, 



Rep. 567; The Suffolk, 31 id. 83s; III. Cent. R. Co. v. Simmons, 49 111. 

 App. 443. 



Contra, Vaughn v. Wabash R. Co., 62 Mo. App. 461, citing no author- 

 ities. The correct rule is laid down, however, in Glascock v. Chic. & A. 

 R. Co., 69 Mo. 589; Sturgeon v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co., 65 id. 569. 



Damages resulting from loss of weight and physical injury caused by 

 non-shipment should, in proper cases, be included: Gann v. Chic. Great 

 Western R. Co., 72 Mo. App. 34. So should the extra expenses rendered 

 necessary by the negligent mixing of carloads of cattle while unloading 

 them: Kansas City Stock- Yards Co. v. Hawkins (Kan. App.), 55 Pac. 

 Rep. 470. 



'" Glascock V. Chic. & A. R. Co., supra. 



==" Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. McAulay (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. A\'. Rep. 

 475. Sed quare? 



^ Gelvin V. Kan. City, S. J. & C. B. R. Co., 21 Mo. App. 273. a case 

 where, as was said, supra, the rule laid down for measure of damages was 

 that applicable where the carrier refuses to accept the stock, whereas, ac- 

 cording to the facts, it was guilty here of unreasonable delay only. 



■'*' Phila., W. & B. R. Co. v. Lehman, 56 Md. 209. 



=°' Sisson V. Cleveland & T. R. Co., 14 Mich. 489. 



■"' Newport News & M. V. R. Co. v. Mercer, 96 Ky. 475- And see Mo. 



