
    Porterfield & Brooks vs. Humphreys.
    The owners of steamboats, who receive horses to be conveyed from one point to another are responsible to the same extent as inn-keepers are for losses. Where a horse escapes from his fastenings on a boat, and is lost in the river, this is negligence, for which the owners of the boat will -be held responsible.
    This is an action on the case in the circuit court of Davidson county, for the valúe of a horse. The first count charged, the delivery of u horse to Porterfield & Brooks, owners of a steamboat, to be carried safely from Smithland to Memphis, and delivered to the plaintiff; and that they so negligently conducted themselves that the horse was not securely kept, conveyed or delivered, but was lost. The second count was in trover. The defendants pleaded not guilty, and issue being taken, the case was submitted to a jury. It appears that the plaintiffs were owners of a steamboat, engaged in the transportation of passengers and freight from Nashville to New Orleans, and that plaintiff and horse came on board at Smith-land to be conveyed for a reasonable sum to Memphis; that the horse was placed in a safe place on the boat; and the witness said he was securely fastened with a good rope, and that he got loose, leaving the rope unbroken, and went overboard in the night, and was not seen or heard of afterwards. Some' proof was adduced, the object of which was to show, that the plaintiff had loosened the rope by which the horse was secured, under the apprehension that he would be choked to death.
    
      The jury rendered a verdict for the value of the horse, under the charge of the presiding judge, which was not excepted to. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and defendant appealed.
    
      A. and J. M. Lea, for .the plaintiff in error.
    
      Moseley, for the defendant in error.
   Turley, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

We think there is no error in this case. The owner of a steamboat, who receives horses to be carried, is responsible for the safe-keeping, at least, to the same extent as an innkeeper.

In the present case, the horse escaped from his fastenings on board of the boat, and was lost over-board in the night. Now, he must have been negligently fastened, or this could .not have happened — ;prima facie, this negligence is attributable to the owners of the boat, and the proof does not Warrant the assumption, that it was the consequence of an improper interference on the part of the.owner of the horse.

There is no error in the charge of the judge, and the proof sustains the verdict.

Let the judgment be affirmed.  