necting roads from which they are received shall be included, it being the intent of this section to prohibit their continuous confinement beyond the period of twenty-eight hours, except upon the contingencies hereinbefore stated." The following section provides that animals so unloaded shall be properly fed and watered during such rest by the owner or person having the custody thereof, or in case of his default in so doing, then by the railroad company or owners or masters of boats or vessels transporting the same at the expense of the owner or person in custody thereof: U. S. Rev. Stats. sec. 4387. And a penalty is provided for a failure to comply with these two sections: U. S. Rev. Stats., sec. 4388.

These statutory provisions constitute "a humane, rather than a sanitary, regulation," intended to prevent cruelty and injury to animals shipped long distances, and embrace horses, mules, and all animals which may suffer for want of food, water, or rest during such transportation: Chesapeake etc. Ry. Co. v. American Exchange Bank, 92 Va. 495, 502. Such unloading is excused by unavoidable causes only. Hence, It is not excused by an accident to a train due to ncgligence: Newport etc. Co. v. United States, 61 Fed. Rep. 488. Under section 4557 of the United States Revised Statutes, the duty to feed and water stock is imposed upon the shipper where the carrier has afforded reasonable facilities therefor: Fort Worth etc. Ry. Co. v. Daggett, 87 Tex. 322; and, if the carrier holds horses in a delayed car forty-nine hours without food, drink, or rest, after being requested by the custodian to unload them for the purpose of being fed and watered, an action will lie: Brockway v. American Exp. Co., 168 Mass. 257. The object of section 4386 of the United States Revised Statutes being to prohibit the confinement of animals longer than the time, that section is not a grant of privilege to the carrier authorizing it to confine the stock for the period of time therein mentioned, irrespective of the question of negligence in so doing. The question of negligence, as to such confinement, is still left as at common law, notwithstanding the statute: Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Ivy, 79 Tex. 444; and, in addition to the penalty imposed by the statute, a railway company failing to comply with the above requirements would be answerable in damages to the owner of the stock: Hale v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 36 Neb. 266: Nashville etc. Ry. Co. v. Heggie, 86 Ga. 210; 22 Am. St. Rep. 453. The above statutory provisions were "intended to prevent cruelty in interstate commerce, as well as danger to the public health, from inducing diseases in animals which are to be used for food": Brockway v. American Exp. Co., 168 Mass. 257, 259.

In an action against a railroad company for negligence and noncompliance with sections 4386 and 4387 of the United States Revised Statutes, by keeping livestock confined in the cars for more than twenty-eight consecutive hours, the fact that the company's stockyard at its feeding station was on fire upon the arrival of the train will not excuse it for not furnishing the person in charge of the stock all proper facilities for caring for them, in compliance

with the contract of shipment, nor for failing to stop the train at some other station, so that the stock, after they had been on the cars more than twenty-eight consecutive hours, might be unloaded, watered, and fed by the person in charge, notwithstanding his want of diligence in not urging that the train be so stopped for that purpose: Nashville etc. Ry. Co. v. Heggie, 86 Ga. 210; 22 Am. St. Rep. 453. Section 4386 of the United States Revised Statutes above noticed extends only to shipments of livestock from one state to another: United States v. East Tennessee etc. R. R. Co., 13 Fed. Rep. 642; and in Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v. Peterson, 68 Miss. 454, it is held that the state courts are in no way concerned with the enforcement of this statute.

Duty as to Loading and Unloading, Bedding, Ventilation of Cars, etc. Under the inspection laws of Texas, it is not necessary that a shipper's entire herd of cattle shall be inspected before those actually inspected for shipment may be put on railroad cars for shipment. The loading and inspection may be carried on at the same time, when enough cattle of a herd have been inspected to commence loading, and where the remainder of the cattle can be inspected without causing any delay in loading them into the cars for shipment; and the agent of the railway company would not fail in doing his duty by so receiving the cattle: Receivers v. Wright, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 198. A carrier must not furnish a car, infected with cattle fever, in which to transport stock; and if it does it cannot escape liability on the ground that the bill of lading was not signed by its agent: Railway Co. v. Henderson, 57 Ark. 402, 417.

It is the duty of a carrier receiving livestock for transportation to have proper machinery and facilities for loading the animals, and also for unloading them whenever, in the course of the transit, it may become necessary to unload them for the purpose of feeding: Dunn v. Hannibal etc. R. R. Co., 68 Mo. 268; Norfolk etc. R. R. Co. v. Harman, 91 Va. 601; 50 Am. St. Rep. 855; and the carrier is liable as a common carrier, although the shipper agrees to furnish the cars and to load and unload them entirely: Fordyce v. McFlynn, 56 Ark. 424. Although a shipper has agreed to load, feed, water, and unload his stock at his own risk and expense, yet it is the duty of the carrier to furnish suitable and safe facilities for loading and unloading the stock, while being carried over its line: Chesapeake etc. Ry. Co. v. American Exchange Bank, 92 Va. 495. If the shipper has agreed to load. transfer, and unload cattle at his own cost, and the carrier makes a mistake, at a regular feeding place for stock in transitu, whereby some of the cattle are sent to the wrong point, and other cattle are mixed with those of the shipper, the carrier is answerable, although it has provided the necessary arrangements for unloading, feeding and reloading stock, because it is the duty of the carrier to prevent stock from becoming intermingled: Norfolk etc. R. R. Co. v. Sutherland, 89 Va. 703; but, if a shipper has agreed to load and unlcad stock, and the carrier relies upon such undertaking, it is not answerable for negligent loading by the shipper, notwithstanding the carrier's general duty to see that the ani

mals are properly loaded: Fordyce v. McFlynn, 56 Ark. 424. It has been held, however, that a carrier must not cause horses or cattle to be loaded in a car an unreasonable time before the departure of a train, although it is exempted from liability for injury caused by mere delay: Alabama etc. Ry. Co. v. Sparks, 71 Miss. 757; Kansas etc. Ry. Co. v. Ayers, 63 Ark. 331. A special contract under which a shipper agrees to care for his stock, and to load and unload them at his own risk, does not authorize him to determine where and under what circumstances the loading and unloading shall take place, but rather imposes on him the duty of loading and unloading wherever and whenever the exigencies of the transportation may, in the judgment of the carrier, render it necessary: McAlister v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 74 Mo. 351. It is the duty of a railroad company to unload horses at the time agreed upon, and it is liable for an injury to the animals through delay in unloading them: Corbett v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 86 Wis. 82; Benson v. Gray, 154 Mass. 391, 394. If a train, which is to take cattle, passes the station at which they are waiting, between 10 and 11 o'clock at night, without taking them, it is not the owner's duty, although he has resolved not to permit the company to complete the transportation, to take the cattle out of the cars, immediately after the train has passed, to prevent injury from confinement. If he takes them out at 9 o'clock on the following morning, he is not chargeable with any want of proper diligence in removing them: Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. V. Waters, 41 Ill. 73.

It is the duty of a railroad company to keep its platforms from which it loads livestock in such repair as to prevent the exposure of animals to injury: East Tennessee etc. Ry. Co. v. Herrman, 92 Ga. 384; and it is the duty of the company to provide a safe mode of delivery by having a platform suitable for the purpose of unloading stock: Owen v. Louisville etc. R. R. Co., 87 Ky. 626. A carrier is required to furnish a safe chute for loading animals as well as safe cars for transportation. If a gangway, by reason of its rottenness, goes down and injury results, there is a failure of duty on the part of the carrier: McCullough v. Wabash etc. Ry. Co., 34 Mo. App. 23. A shipper, in loading cattle, is not guilty of negligence in using an icy chute without sanding it, unless its use is glaringly dangerous. It is the carrier's duty to sand it, if necessary: Kincaid v. Kansas etc. Ry. Co., 62 Mo. App. 365. A railroad company is bound to see that proper planking and guardrails are maintained at a bridge around which it is necessary for shippers of stock to go in looking after the animals: Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v. Foley, 53 Fed. Rep. 459.

If a carrier receives a car overloaded with animals, it assumes all the responsibilities of a common carrier respecting it, and is not excused from liability, in case of injury, by the fact that the car was overloaded: Kinnick v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 69 Iowa, 665. Compare Huston v. Wabash R. R. Co., 63 Mo. App. 671. It is undoubtedly true that cars furnished for the transportation of livestock should be well ventilated; and, although a shipper, by special

contract, assumes the risk of suffocation in consequence of the anlmals being "crowded" into a car, yet this does not excuse the carrier from liability for the death of animals caused by reason of the "insufficiency of the ventilation" of the car: Kansas City etc. R. R. Co. v. Holland, 68 Miss. 351. If, however, a carrier offers to furnish a proper car, and the shipper, instead of waiting for it, but to subserve some purpose of convenience, crowds thirty-two head of cattle into an empty, close box-car, not suited to the purpose of carrying cattle, and the stock become distressed and damaged for want of air and ventilation, the carrier may plead the shipper's conduct in its own justification: Huston v. Wabash R. R. Co., 63 Mo. App. 671, 676.

If a carrier undertakes to supply bedding for animals in transitu, the material must be of a kind not likely to occasion injury. If it provides straw, and a fire occurs from such use, whereby animals are injured or burned to death, the company is answerable for its negligence: Powell v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 32 Pa. St. 414; 75 Am. Dec. 564. If the shipper accepts a car, and loads it with cattle, knowing that the car is not "bedded," the carrier is not answerable for negligence in failing to bed, or for insufficient bedding of the car: East Tennessee etc. R. R. Co. v. Johnston, 75 Ala. 596; 51 Am. Rep. 489. But, although a shipper has agreed to care for his own stock, the carrier must give him a reasonable opportunity to properly provide the animals with bedding. Hence, if a car turns out to be defective, and cattle therein have to be changed to another car, it is the carrier's duty to give the shipper a chance to bed such other car: McDaniel v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 24 Iowa, 412.

Duty to Prevent Escape.-It is clearly the duty of a railroad company, which undertakes to transport livestock, to prevent the anlmals from escaping by reason of any defect in cars: Indianapolis etc. Ry. Co. v. Strain, 81 Ill. 504. If it negligently permits Texas cattle to escape from its custody while in transportation, it is answerable in damages for the loss of native cattle thereby infected with "Texas fever": Grimes v. Eddy, 126 Mo. 168; 47 Am. St. Rep. 653; and if it permits cattle to escape, from defects in its cars, even beyond the terminus of its road, it will be answerable for the loss, notwithstanding a special contract limiting its liability to the end of its road: Indianapolis etc. Ry. Co. v. Strain, 81 Ill. 504. It is the duty of the carrier to keep its appliances for fastening stockpens in repair, so that animals may not escape and injury be inflicted: Texas etc. Ry. Co. v. Bigham, 90 Tex. 223, 228; Mason v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 25 Mo. App. 473. It must not permit the fences of its stockpens to become rotten and insecure: Cooke v. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 57 Mo. App. 471. If a stockpen is unsafe, and loss results from its condition, the carrier is liable, although the owner could have known of the condition of the pen. The carrier cannot absolve itself from liability by permitting its pens to become so dilapidated that the shipper will recognize them as unsafe: Gulf etc. Ry. Co. v. Trawick, 80 Tex. 270, 275. If animals escape, through their own efforts and exertions, without any negligence on

the part of the carrier, the latter, of course, is not answerable: Blower v. Great Western Ry, Co., L. R. 7 Com. P. 655.

Duty of General Supervision.--Animals while being transported on cars or vessels may injure or destroy themselves or each other; they may die from fright or from starvation because they refuse to eat; or they may die from heat, or cold, or want of ventilation. It is, therefore, the carrier's duty to be reasonably careful and watchful over the animals during the entire journey to prevent them from injuring themselves, or each other, or from becoming injured in other ways, as by heat, cold, suffocation, etc.: Baker v. Louisville etc. R. R. Co., 10 Lea, 304; Kinnick v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 69 Iowa, 665; Sturgeon v. St. Louis etc. Ry. Co., 65 Mo. 569; Toledo etc. Ry. Co. v. Hamilton, 76 Ill. 393; Clarke v. Rochester etc. R. R. Co., 67 Am. Dec. 205, and note thereto pp. 210, 212. Hence, the carrier must prevent stock, such as hogs, from "piling up," or becoming crowded: Kinnick v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 69 Iowa, 665, 669; it must also guard against their suffocation, notwithstanding a special contract exempting it from liability for any loss by suffocation: Sturgeon v. St. Louis etc. Ry. Co., 65 Mo. 569; and, where they are in danger of becoming overheated, it is the duty of the carrier to throw water on them to avert the danger: Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v. Adams, 42 Ill. 474; 92 Am. Dec. 85; Toledo etc. Ry. Co. v. Hamilton, 76 Ill. 393; Toledo etc. Ry. Co. v. Thompson, 71 Ill. 434.

The duty of the carrier to provide food, water, and rest for stock in course of transportation is, in several of the states, declared by statute, and a penalty fixed for a failure to discharge it; but whether so declared, or not, it is the carrier's duty, if it can be done with reasonable convenience, to sidetrack a car, and either unload it, or afford the shipper an opportunity to do so, whenever, in the course of the transportation, the safety and welfare of the animals require that they be temporarily unloaded for rest, food, or water, or to appease their fright, or that they be differently loaded: Coupland v. Housatonic R. R. Co., 61 Conn. 531; Johnson v. Alabama etc. Ry. Co., 69 Miss. 191; 30 Am. St. Rep. 534. Thus, if the carrier's agents are informed that a mare, with a colt, is becoming frightened, is acting badly, and is in danger of being killed by further transportation, it is the carrier's duty, upon the request of the shipper's agent, to sidetrack the car at a place where they are next to stop, where that may reasonably be done: Coupland v. Housatonic R. R. Co., 61 Conn. 531. So, if it is found that cattle, being transported in a railroad car with hogs, are suffering, the conductor of the train is not justified in refusing, upon the shipper's request, to lay out the car at a station, merely because the stockpen at that station is unsafe for hogs, it not appearing that the cattle could not be separately unloaded, or that the railway company was under no duty of having a pen safe for hogs as well as for cattle: Johnson v. Alabama etc. Ry. Co., 69 Miss. 191; 30 Am. St. Rep. 534. But, where there is a special contract for the shipper, having only a few horses and some "emigrant movables," to care for his AM. ST. REP., VOL. LXIII.-36