In an earlier appeal in this case we vacated the judgment for the defendantappellee and remanded the case to the District Court. Metz v. Tusico, Inc., 4 Cir., 1957, 246 F.2d 54. That Court then took further testimony and made additional findings, concluding that there was no breach by the appellee of its warranty that water was available to the property sold by it to the appellant, and rendered judgment for the appellee. We perceive no error in the Judge’s findings of fact or conclusions of law, and the judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated in the District Court’s opinion. 260 F.Supp. 393.

Affirmed.