¶1Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
¶2For opinion below, see 104 Fed. 99.
¶3H. G. Ward, for appellant.
¶4Wilhelmus Mynderse, for appellee.
¶5Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and TOWNSEND, Circuit Judges.
¶7We concur in the conclusion reached by the court below that the claimant failed to exercise the due diligence required by the condition of the bill of lading. Although the peculiar susceptibility of cast iron chests thus used in connection with closets was so well known that brass valve chests are now generally substituted therefor in steamers of this class, the claimant had elected to retain and continue the use of these cast iron chests in the Friesland during a period of nine years. The usual examination was made previous to this voyage, but it was not sufficient to determine whether the defect which caused the damage existed. Claimant’s chief excuse for such inadequate inspection, that the valve chest was so situated that examination of the interior was difficult, only serves to emphasize the fault. The cause of the difficulty was the adjustment of two pipes in one'space between two frames, whereby the opening in the top of the valve chest was so crowded as to prevent, exterior visual examination. There were, however, other practicable methods of examination, as pointed out by the district judge in his opinion, none of which were followed. The decree is affirmed.