DAMAGES. 521 



The measure of damages for the destruction by the carrier 

 of a collection of birds and animals in a museum is the value 

 of such specimens at the nearest market, rather than the value 

 of the owner's time in collecting them.^** 



Evidence of the value of the stock at other places than their 

 destination is inadmissible.^"^ And it was said in a Texas case 

 that a stipulation by the company that the value of the cattle 

 shipped, if lost, should be paid by them at the value at the 

 place of shipment was against public policy and void.^"* 

 But in Illinois such an agreement has been upheld.^"' 



Various incidental losses may be recovered in actions for 

 injury or delay. Thus the shrinkage in weight of the stock is 

 an item of damage.^"* And so is the cost of keeping the ani- 

 mals ;^''^ but only to the day when the plaintiff sells them or 

 could have sold them.^^" Where cattle were to be kept in pas- 

 ture at their destination, the excess in cost of keeping them at 

 the place of delay over that at the place of destination is re- 

 coverable, and not the entire cost of herding and pasturage at 

 the point of delay.^^^ Damages for delay in arriving to receive 

 a cargo of cattle are only such expense as keeping the cattle 

 •during the period of delay and the additional insurance that 

 the shipper may have had to pay for the increased risk.*^^ 



'"" Yoakum v. Dunn, i Tex. Civ. App. 524. 



'"=Tex. & Pac. R. Co. v. Barber (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. Rep. 500; 

 Hendrick v. Boston & A. R. Co., 170 Mass. 44. 



,"'"'' Mo. Pac, R. Co. V. Edwards, 78 Tex. 307. And see Internat. & G. N. 

 R. Co. V. Parish (Tex. Civ. App.), 43 S. W. Rep. 1066. 



"" Chic, R. I. & P. R. Co. V. Harmon, 17 111. App. 640. And see In- 

 ■dianapolis, B. & W. R. Co. v. Strain, 81 111. 504 



"^ Sturgeon v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co., 65 Mo. 569; Ft. Worth & 

 D. C. R. Co. V. Greathouse, 82 Tex. 104; Goldsmith v. Tower Hill Steam- 

 ship Co., 37 Fed. Rep.. 806; The Caledonia, so id. 567; HI. Cent. R. Co. 

 ■V. Simmons, 49 111. App. 443. 



''™ Goldsmith v. Tower Hill Steamship Co., supra; 111. Cent R. Co. v. 



Simmons, supra. 



™ Ay res v. Chic. & N. R. Co., 75 Wis. 215. 



'" Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. Hume, 87 Tex. 211. 



'" The J. C. Stevenson, 17 Fed. Rep. S40. Semble, that under the cir- 



