MODE OF TKANSPORTATION. 495 



whereby seawater escaped and damaged rice were "dangers 

 and accidents of the seas" and came within the exception in 

 a bin of lading.^"! In similar cases in this country the op- 

 posite opinion was held, rats being considered not to be a 

 peril of the sea.^"^ It has been held also that they did not 

 come within an exception of damages from vermin,^"^ but 

 this decision has been reversed.^"* The owners of vessels 

 are also liable for unseaworthiness caused by worms : such in- 

 juries are not perils of the sea.^"' 



114. Food and Water — The duty of a carrier to see that ani- 

 mals entrusted to it are properly fed and watered depends 

 somewhat upon the contract with the shipper. But whether 

 or not the shipper is obliged to feed and water his animals, 

 the carrier is always required to furnish places and facilities 

 for doing this; ^"'^ and is liable for failure to do so, though the 

 damages are but temporary.^"^ But where a carrier's con- 

 tract terminates on delivery of the cattle to a connecting car- 



""- Hamilton v. Pandorf, 12 App. Cas. 518. 



'"'The Euripides, 71 Fed. Rep. 728; Kanter v. The Italia, 59 id. 617. 



And see, to the same effect, The Carlotta, 9 Ben. (U. S.) i; The Isabella, 

 8 id. 139, where the fact of damage was held sufficient evidence of 

 insufficient care and skill in trying to rid the vessel of rats. 



'" The Timor, 46 Fed. Rep. 859, citing Stevens v. Navigazione Gen. 

 Ital., 39 id. 562. 



""The Timor, 67 Fed. Rep. 356. 



'"' The Giles Loring, 48 Fed. Rep. 463- 



'™ Smith V. Mich. Cent. R. Co., 100 Mich. 148; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. 

 V. Gann, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 620; Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co. v. Daggett, 87 

 Tex. 322; Internat. & G. N. R. Co. v. McRae, 82 id. 614; Gulf, C. & S. F. 

 R. Co. V. Simmons (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. Rep. 825; Taylor, B. & H. 

 R. Co. V. Montgomery, 4 Tex. App. (Civ. Cas.) 401; Bryant v. South- 

 western R. Co., 68 Ga. 80s; Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. Pratt, 15 111. 

 App. 177; Toledo, W. & W. R. Co. :;. Hamilton, 76 111. 393; Abrams v. 

 Milwaukee, L. S. & W. R. Co., 87 Wis. 485; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 

 V. Ditmars, 3 Kan. App. 459. 



The company is not liable to a penalty for failure to feed when the road 

 is in the hands of a receiver: Tex. & Pac. R. Co. v. Barnhart, 5 Tex. Civ. 

 App. 601. 



"" Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. Simmons, supra. 



