104.  In  East  India  Go.  v.  Tod  (m),  the  shipowners  were  not  to  be  "  Ship
liable  "  in  respect  of  goods  damaged  on  board  the  ship,  either  in  *™*se-
her  outward  or  homeward-bound  voyage,  but  such  as  shall  by  the
condition  and  appearance  of  the  package  thereof,  or  by  some  other
reasonable  proof,  appear  to  be  ship  damage."  It  was  held,  that
ship  damage  meant  such  as  might  happen  by  insufficiency  of  the
ship,  or  by  the  negligence  of  those  in  charge  of  her.
An  exception  of  "vermin"  has  been  held  to  cover  damage  by  "Vermin."
rats  eating  the  cargo,  where  reasonable  care  has  been  taken  to  keep
the  ship  free  from  rats  («).
B.  373e.    The  view  taken  seems  to  have  adjustment  is  only  a  convenient  state-

heen  that  the  right  of  the  cargo-owner  ment,  and  setting  ofE,  of  the  cross-claims.
is  to  recover  a  balance  of  general  average  {!)  Me  Meyer,  The  Emily,   74  Eed.
on  adjustment.    But  yj^are.     His  right  Rep.  881.
is  to  have  contributions  to  his  loss ;  not  {»»)  1  Brown's  P.  C.  405.
to  have  a  balance  on  adjustment.    The  («)   The   Timor,   67   Fed.  Eep.   356


140


THE  CONTEACT.
