Railroad    Co.   v.    Suramerour,   139

Ga.  545.
Prelly  Co.  v.  R.  Co.,  120  Minn.
Lyon  V.  R.  Co.,  165  N.  C  143,  295.
Union  Express  Co.  v.  Graham,  26

Ohio  St.  595.
Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Stellaners,

61  111.  184.
Fentiman  v.  A.  T.  &  S.  F.  R.  Ox,

98  S.  W.  939  (Tex.).
44.  Watson  v.  Union  Pac  R.  Co.
(Mo.  1915).  178  S.  W.  871,  87^

The  general  rule  is  that  the  f  reef-
ing of  goods  of  perishable  nature


CH.  ni.        NEGLIGENCE  DUEINQ  TRANSPOETATION


127


a  carrier  to  apprehend  that  at  certain  seasons  of  the  year  ship-
ments of  perishable  produce  are  liable  to  freeze.  *"  But  where  a
shipment  of  perishable  produce  is  made  in  a  month  when  freez-


^vhile  en  route  is  an  act  of  God  for
which  the  carrier  is  not  liable  unless
caused  by  unnecessary  delay  in  trans-
portation or  by  careless  exposure  to
the  cold.
Vail  V.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  63  Mo.  230.
Wolf  V.  American  Express  Co.,  43

Mo.  422,  97  Am.  Dec.  406.
Swetland  v.  Boston,  etc,  R.  Co.,

702  Mass.  276.
Wing  V.  New  York,  etc,  R.  Co.,  1

Hilt.  (N.  Y.),  235.
The  carrier  is  liable  where  goods
are  frozen  owing  to  its  negligence
either  in  shipping  at  a  season  of  the
year  when  a  freezing  spell  might
reasonably  be  anticipated  or  in  not
properly  taking  care  of  the  shipment
during  freezing  weather.
Hewett  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63

Iowa  611.
Fox   V.    Boston,   etc.,   R,   Co.,   148

Mass.,  220.   19  N.  E.  222.
McGraw  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,
18  W.  V.  361,  41  Am.  Rep.  696.
Michigan  Cent  R.  Co.  v.  Burrows,

33  Mich.  6.
Milton  V.  Denver,  etc,  R.   Co.,   1

Colo.  App.  307,  29  Pac  22.
