(p) Forward v. Pittard, 1 T. R. 27; Thorogood v. Marsh, Gow, 106; Hale v. N. J. Steam Navigation Co. 16 Conn. 680, 545; Parker v. Flagg, 26 Me. 181; Parsons v. Monteath, 18 Barb. 353; Chevaillier v. Straham, 2 Tex. 116; Miller v. Steam Navigation Co. 10 N. Y. (6 Seld.) 481.

(q) Gilmore v.Carman, 1 Sm. & M. 279.

(r) Parsons v. Hardy, 14 Wend. 215. But the carrier is nevertheless bound to exercise ordinary forecast in anticipating the obstruction; must use the proper

1 In Empire Transportation Co. v. Wamsutta Oil Co. 63 Penn. St. 14, a railroad was declared liable for the loss of oil by fire, a defective coupling between cars preventing their separation and the saving of the oil. See also Merchants' Despatch Co. v. Smith, 76 Ill. 542.

If the goods are taken from the carrier by legal process, with no fault on his part, he is excused for non-delivery, but must give immediate notice to the owner. (rr)1

* If the goods have been injured by such an act of God, the carrier is still bound to take all reasonable care of them, to preserve them from further injury; but is not bound to repair them or have them repaired; (s) and if practicable he should unpack the goods and dry them; (t) and for this purpose he may open barrels and boxes; (u) but he is not bound to delay his voyage or journey for that purpose. (v) 2

The carrier is not liable for any loss from natural decay of perishable goods, such as fruit or the like; or the fermentation of liquors, or their evaporation or leakage. (w) And it has been held, that a carrier of animals is not liable for injury to them, caused by the peculiar risks arising out of their own nature, to which they are subject. He would not be liable for an accident arising from the animal's own viciousness, or restiveness, or of that of other animals transported with it.3 In such cases the meant to overcome it; and exercise due diligence to accomplish the transportation he has undertaken, as soon as the obstruction ceases to operate, and in the mean time must not be guilty of negligence in the care of the property. Bowman v. Teall, 88 Wend. 806. See also Lowe v. Moss, 12 Ill. 477. And where damage was done to a cargo by water escaping through the pipe of a steam-boiler, in consequence of the pipe haying been cracked by frost; it was held, that this was not an act of God, but negligence in the captain, in filling the boiler before the time for heating it, although it was the practice to fill over night when the vessel started in the morning. And Best C. J., said: "No one. can doubt that this loss was occasioned by negligence. It is well known that frost will rend iron; and if so, the master of a vessel cannot be justified in keeping water within his boiler in the middle of winter, when frost may be expected. The jury found that this was negligence, and I agree in their verdict" Siordet v. Hall, 4 Bing. 607.

(rr) Bliven v. Hudson River R. R. Co. 86 N. T. 408.

(s) Charleston S. B. Co. v. Bason, Harper.202.

(t) Chouteau v. Leech, 18 Penn. 8t 224.

(u) Bird v. Cromwell, 1 Mo. 81.

(v) Steamboat Lynx v. King, 12 Ma 272.

(w) Thus, if an action be brought against a carrier for negligently driving his cart, so that a pipe of wine was burst and lost, it will be good evidence for the defendant that the wine was upon the ferment, and when the pipe was burst he was driving gently. Per Lord Holt, in Farrar v. Adams, Bull. N. P. 60. See also Leach v. Baldwin, 6 Watts, 446; Warden v. Greer, 6 Watts, 424; Clark v. Barnwell, 12 How. 272. And where there is a custom to carry goods in open wagons, of which the sender had notice, the carrier is not liable for injuries caused by rains during the transportation. Chev-aillier v. Patton, 10 Tex. 344.

1 O. & M. R. Co. v. Yohe 51 Ind. 181.

2 See Notara v. Henderson, L. R. 5 Q. B. 346; 7 Q. B. 225.

3 A common carrier is not liable for loss or damage caused by an inherent defect in the thing or animal carried without any fault of the carrier, or by the manner of packing or loading, the responsibility of which the owner has assumed, or by any want of care which the owner was to exercise. Rixford v. Smith, 52 N. H. 355. But where cause of the loss is a question to be determined by the jury. (x) So far as losses of this kind are caused by the operation of natural laws, they come within the exception of the "act of God." But the carrier is nevertheless not excused if the loss was caused also by his default, as by bad stowage, or other negligence. And if he is informed that the goods are perishable, or should know it from the nature of the goods, he is bound to use all reasonable means and precautions to prevent the loss. (y) So if a particular notice is given him; as by marking the box, "Glass, this side up," or the like, he is bound to take notice and follow these directions. (z) Losses by the public enemy include those only which are sustained from persons with whom the State or nation is at war; and pirates on the high seas, who are "the enemies of all mankind;" (a) but not thieves; or robbers; nor mobs;

(x) Hall v. Renfro, 3 Met. (Ky.) 61.

(y) Farrar v. Adams, the cause of damage to live-stock, for which recovery is sought, is not connected with the conduct, character, or propensities of the animals undertaken to be carried, the ordinary responsibility of the carrier should attach. McCoy &. K. & D. M. R. Co. 44 la. 424. Thus Blower v. Great Western Railway, L. R. 7 C. P. 655, decided that a common carrier was not liable for the loss of a bullock which escaped solely by its own efforts from a proper car in which it had been placed, and was killed without any negligence on the carrier's part. Carriers of live-stock are liable for any loss occasioned by their failure to provide them with water. Toledo, etc. R. Co. v. Hamilton, 76 Ill. 393. See Michigan, Ac. R. Co. v. McDonough, 21 Mich. 165.

(z) Thus, where a box containing a glass bottle filled with oil of cloves, delivered to a common carrier, was marked, "Glass - with care - this side up;" it was held, that this was a sufficient notice of the value and nature of the contents to charge him for the loss of the oil, occasioned by his disregarding such direction. And Shaw, C. J., said: "It is not denied that the box was marked, 'Glass - with care - this side up,' which was quite sufficient notice to the defendant that the article was valuable, and liable to injury from rough handling and other causes, and that there was danger in carrying it in any other position than the one indicated by the inscription. As the carriage is a matter of contract, as the owner has a right to judge for himself what position is best adapted to carrying goods of this description with safety, and to direct how they shall be carried, and as the carrier has a right to fix his own rate for the carriage, or refuse altogether to take the goods with such directions, the court are all of opinion, that if a carrier accepts goods for carriage, thus marked, he is bound to carry the goods in the manner and position required by the notice. Here it is in evidence, and not denied, that the box was stowed in such a manner that the marked side was not kept up, and consequently the large bottle, which was broken by some cause in the passage, after it was stowed and before its arrival, bore its weight upon its side, and not on its bottom." Hastings v. Pepper, 11 Pick. 41. See also Sager v. Portsmouth Railroad Co. 31 Me. 228; and Cougar v. Galena R. R. Co. 17 Wis. 477.