This rule is as applicable to carriers by water as to railroads;38 and in the case of initial carriers, it will be no excuse that the effect of their negligence did not appear or develop until the stock was in the hands of a connecting carrier.39 Sec. 635. Space for cattle must be sufficiently ventilated.In a contract for the transportation of cattle it is implied that the space allotted to the cattle shall be sufficiently ventilated; and if there is not sufficient ventilation in certain compartments of a vessel to enable a shipper to procure insurance upon the cattle to be placed therein, the shipper may refuse to ship them, and may recover damages for failure to transport them under the contract.40 The mere fact, however, that a tion got down in the crate, it was and water live stock carried by it the duty of the carrier to remedy at proper intervals. Railroad Co. the situation by putting the jack . Schuldt, 66 Neb. 43, 92 N. W. on its feet. If sufficient force was Rep. 162; Bosley v. Railroad Co., not at hand it should have been 54 W. Va. 563, 46 S. E. Rep. 613, procured. Express Co. v. Emer- 66 L. R. A. 871; Burns v. Railway son, 101 Mo. App. 62, 74 S. W. Rep. Co., 104 Wis. 646, 80 N. W. Rep. 132. 927. Testimony tending to show that the bad condition of cattle at their destination was due to neglect and bad treatment during the journey is not inadmissible as opinion evidence where the witnesses are qualified by experience to express such opinions either by having been in the railroad service or by dealing in cattle. On the other hand testimony is also admissible that the cattle were not in fit con dition to stand transportation by rail at the particular time of year on account of the change from a warm to a cold climate causing the cattle to become numb and lie down in the cars. Railway Co. v. Arnett, 111 Fed. 849, 50 C. C. A. 17. In the absence of special contract, the carrier is bound to feed A common carrier of live stock is bound to furnish suitable water for such stock to drink. If he furnishes alkaline water to stock which he knows are unaccustomed to its use, and the stock, through its injurious effect, are damaged, the carrier will be responsible. Railway Co. v. Mitchell (Tex. Civ. App.), 85 S. W. Rep. 286. The carrier, in the absence of any contract pertaining thereto, is bound to feed and water the stock during transit. Southern, etc. R'y Co. v. J. W. Burgess & Co., -Tex. Civ. App. 90 S. W. Rep. 189. 38. The Connemara, 57 Fed. 314. 39. Railway Co. v. Herring (Tex. Civ. App.) 24 S. W. Rep. 939. 40. The Alvah, 77 Fed. 315, 23 number of cattle died on a particular voyage from no apparent cause is insufficient proof of bad ventilation as against the pos itive opinion of experts that the ventilation was sufficient combined with the fact that the vessel had previously carried a greater number of cattle in the same compartments with scarcely any loss. 4 41 Sec. 636. Care due pregnant or sick animals. In the absence of notice of facts sufficient to charge the carrier with knowledge that animals shipped are pregnant, such a condition should be regarded as a hidden or concealed defect, and the carrier, in handling such shipment, should not be charged with a degree of care or duty greater than that ordinarily used in handling animals.42 So a carrier is not liable for the death of an animal due to an attack of meningitis, or other similar disease, of which the carrier is not forewarned, when he does all in his power to protect the animal after its being so attacked.43 But if the condition of the animal is plainly perceptible when shipped, or the carrier has knowledge of such facts as would lead a reasonable man to infer the condition of the animal, the carrier will be liable in damages if it does not give to the animal that treatment which its condition demands.44 Sec. 637. Rule in Michigan with reference to caring for live stock. The cases in Michigan on the obligation of caring for live stock during its transportation are so exceptional that they are separately treated. In accordance with the rule followed in that state that railway companies are not common carriers of live stock,45 it is held that the shipper of live stock assumes the risks of injuries to the stock arising from unavoidable accidents and delays. Thus it is held that where the C. C. A. 181, reversing Morris v. 41. The Mondego, 56 Fed. 268. 42. Railway Co. v. Fagan, (Tex. Civ. App.) 27 S. W. Rep. 887. 43. Klair v. Wilmington Steamboat Co., 4 Pennewill 51, 54 Atl. Rep. 694. 44. Railroad Co. v. Estill, 147 U. S 591, 37 L. Ed. 292, affirming on this point, Estill v. Railroad Co., 41 Fed. 849; McCune v. Railroad Co., 52 Iowa, 600. 45. See ante, § 340. carrier has found it impossible, owing to causes beyond his control, to feed and water the stock, he will not be liable for damages arising from his failure to do so.46 And it is held that the custom of the shipper to send a care-taker with his stock has become so universal that, in the absence of a special contract with the carrier making it the carrier's duty to care for the stock, the custom becomes a part of the contract of carriage, and that the shipper will assume all those risks of injuries resulting from his failure to comply with such custom. But if the carrier should fail to transport live stock within the time usually required, and should learn that the shipper had no one in charge of it, it would undoubtedly be the carrier's duty to feed and water the stock as the circumstances required. And the duty to apply water to hogs externally when such is found to be necessary to prevent overheating has been held to be a part of the actual duty of transportation, apart from the stipulations in the contract. 48 Sec. 638. Carrier must provide suitable places for feeding and watering live stock. "It is the duty of the railway companies to provide suitable places for feeding and watering live stock transported over their lines; and, if this is not done, they are responsible for any loss entailed or that occurs from such neglect or failure. The carrier is primarily bound to provide food and water for stock shipped over its line of railroad." So "it is held that a railroad company which transports live stock ought not only to have proper facilities and machinery for unloading the stock shipped over the company's line of road whenever, in the course of the transit, it may be necessary to unload them for exercise and refreshment, but also that it is the company's duty to unload, feed and water them at their journey's end, as well as along the route, if there be delay in delivering them to the consignee, in order to dis 46. McKenzie v. Railroad Co., 137 Mich. 112, 100 N. W. Rep. 260. 47. Heller v. Railway Co., 109 Mich. 53, 66 N. W. Rep. 667, 63 48. Wallace r. Railway Co., 133 Mich. 633, 95 N. W. Rep. 750. charge the carrier from liability, if the health or necessities of the animals require this to be done. ''49 49. Gulf, etc. Ry. Co. v. Wilhelm, 327, affirming 78 Fed. 290; Rail(Tex. Civ. App.) 16 S. W. Rep. way Co. v. Hall, 66 Fed. 868, 14 109; Railroad Co. v. Adams, 42 C. C. A. 153, 32 U. S. App. 60; Ill. 474; Railway Co. v. Thomp- Newport News & M. Val. Co. v. son, 71 Ill. 434; Dunn v. Railway United States, 61 Fed. 488, 9 C. Co., 68 Mo. 268; Harris v. Railroad C. A. 579, 22 U. S. App. 145; MisCo., 20 N. Y. 232; Cragin v. Rail- souri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Texas & P. rcad Co., 51 N. Y. 61. Ry. Co., 41 Fed. 913; Railroad Co. v. Gregg, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 2329, 80 S. W. Rep. 512; Hendrick v. Railroad Co., 170 Mass. 44, 48 N. E. Rep. 835; Railway Co. v. Carlisle, (Tex. Civ. App.) 78 S. W. Rep. 553; Railway Co. v. Bank, 92 Va. 495, 23 S. E. Rep. 935, 44 L. R. A. 449; Burns v. Railway Co., 104 Wis. 646, 80 N. W. Rep. 927; Chicago, etc. R'y Co. v. Slattery, Neb. -, 107 N. W. Rep. 1045. This is now a duty imposed on railroads by statute in Texas, unless there is a special contract to the contrary. International, etc. Railway Co. v. McRae, 82 Tex. 614, 18 S. W. Rep. 672, 27 Am. St. Rep. 926; Railroad Co. v. Brown, (Tex. Civ. App.) 85 S. W. Rep. 44; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 41 Fed. 913. If stock is delayed or carried beyond its destination, carrier must feed. Dunn v. Railway Co., supra; Bryant v. Railroad Co., 68 Ga. 805. Unless agreed to the contrary, the carrier may unload cattle and change them from one car to another; and the fact that the owner gces along does not give him the right to dictate when and where the unloading shall take place. McAlister v. Railroad Co., 74 Mo. 351. As to the effect of the federal statute making it compulsory for a railroad company to water, feed, and rest cattle before they have been confined on the cars more than 28 hours (Act March 3, 1873, 17 Stat. 584, c. 252, U. S. Compiled Stat. 1901, p. 2995, § 4386) see the following cases: Railway Co. v. Arnett, 126 Fed. 75, 61 C. C. A. 131; United States v. Harris, 85 Fed. 533, 29 C. C. A. The federal statute does not in terms apply to express companies hiring their accommodations from railroad companies. But the existence of the statute, even though it does not subject express companies to a penalty, is strong evidence of the express company's duty to give a reasonable opportunity to the shipper's custodian, who accompanies animals on the train, to provide them with food and drink on their journey. Indeed, if there was no such statute, a contract to convey horses or cattle to be accompanied by a custodian would impliedly include an undertaking to allow the custodian to stop at reasonably convenient times and places to give them such food and drink as they need to keep them in good health. Not to permit the giving of such food and drink would be gross negligence. Brockway v. Express Co., 168 Mass. 257, And in loading or unloading the stock, due care must not only be taken by the carrier to see that the facilities for so doing are in good condition, 50 but the carrier must also take precautions against the animals injuring each other by kicking or otherwise.51 Sec. 639. Carrier's duty as to management of vehicles containing live stock. The management of a train which may not be negligent as to inanimate freight may be grossly negligent when cars containing live stock are attached to it. Sudden jars or jerks may or may not be injurious to inanimate goods, depending upon the nature of the goods and the manner in which they are packed, but sudden jars or jerks are almost certain to injure live stock. A railroad company is therefore guilty of gross carelessness in making a "flying switch," whereby a freight car is kicked violently against another containing horses thereby injuring them.52 So where a mare was injured by a jarring of the car, the injury was said to have resulted from gross negligence since such an injury could not have happened if the employes of the railroad company conducting the switching, had been in the exercise of due care and caution.53 And whether an animal has been thrown down in the car and injured by the negligent manner of moving the car is a question for the jury.54 Along the same line of reasoning, it has been held that where live stock became greatly frightened during a journey, and in imminent danger of being injured or killed, and the shipper requested the conductor to have his car set off at an inter |