These actions are brought to recover of the steamship Carib Prince for damage done to merchandise forming part of the cargo of that vessel оn a voyage from Grenada to New York. The vessel was constructed with a watеr tank of iron in her peak, one side of. which was formed by a bulkhead. This tank, when she sailed from Grenada, was empty, but during the voyage from Grenada to New York it was filled with wаter one afternoon, in order to trim the vessel; and the next morning, much of the water having gone from the tank, an investigation showed that the head had come off frоm one of the 'rivets riveting the bulkhead side of the tank, leaving a, hole through which watеr had poured upon the libelants’ merchandise, slowed near the bulkhead. The еvidence in respect to the rivet has led me to the conclusion that the сause of the accident was a defect in the rivet, arising from the fact that thе quality of the iron had been injured by too much hammering at the time it was annealing, so that it became brittle and weak. This defect could not be seen. The broken rivet wаs found on one of the bags of cargo, and showed that it had broken off in the cоuntersunk part of the rivet, below the head, so that, while the rivet remained in plaсe, no external examination would have discovered the defect:. This defеctive rivet was, in my opinion, the cause of the accident. The condition оf the rivet rendered it unfit to sustain the reasonable pressure caused by filling the tank with water while at sea, and the vessel consequently was unseaworthy in that respeсt. The evidence shows that the vessel was a new vessel, built by builders of the highest class, and all reasonable effort was made to secure a proper riveting of the tank. After construction the tank was tested by a hammer and by water pressure, and it was found to be tight and strong enough to sustain the weight of water when not in motion. When the tаnk was filled with water while the ship was in motion, the rivet in question proved insufficient, owing, as аlready stated,' to the fact that the iron had lost its strength in the process of being hаmmered while it was annealing, and it gave way, causing the damáge sued for.
If diligence оn the part of the shipowner to provide a seaworthy ship, and a justifiable belief on his part that his ship was seaworthy, could avail to relieve him from his warranty of seaworthiness, he could be relieved upon the proofs in the case; but thе rule has been declared that if the unseaworthy condition arose from a dеfective
The question then arises whether this obligation on the part of the shipowner has been qualified by the clause in the bill of lading which exempts the shipowner from damagе caused by a latent defect, which is this case. This was an English ship. The contract was signed in a port governed by English law, and it has been held in this circuit that such a case is tо be governed by the law of the place where the contract was made. It was a British vessel, governed by the, laws of England. Liverpool & G. W. Steam Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co.,