Cooke v. Paris Mountain Water Co
| Citation | 82 S. C. 235,64 S.E. 157 |
| Parties | COOKE. v. PARIS MOUNTAIN WATER CO. et al. |
| Decision Date | 09 April 1909 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Waters and Water Courses (§ 206*)—Municipal Waterworks — Contract with Water Company — Liability for Fire Losses.
A water company's contract with a municipality, containing a general stipulation to furnish an adequate supply of water to extinguish fires, does not render it liable to a private owner of property for fire losses due to its negligent failure to provide pressure sufficient to extinguish a fire.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Waters and Water Courses, Cent. Dig. § 301; Dec. Dig. § 206.*]
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Greenville County; J. C. Klugh, Judge.
Action by C. E. Cooke against the Paris Mountain Water Company and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed.
Cothran, Dean & Cothran, for appellants.
J. J. McSwain, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint. The contract of the defendant with the city of Greenville is not in the record, while in the very similar case of Ancrum v. Camden Water, Light & Ice Co., 64 S. E. 151, the contract of the water company was set out as a part of the complaint. The complaint in this case, however, rests on the proposition that a contract of a water company with a municipality, containing a general stipulation that it would furnish an adequate supply of water for the extinguishment of fires, carries with such stipulation liability to a private owner of property for fire losses which would have been prevented if the defendant had not negligently failed to provide water pressure sufficient to extinguish the fire. The case of Ancrum v. Camden Water, Light & Ice Co. holds that the contract does not cover such liability, and that the plaintiff cannot recover.
The judgment of the circuit court is reversed.
*.For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Reporter Indexes
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morton v. Wash. Light & Water Co
...Cas. 473; Ancrum v. Camden Water, Light & Ice Co., 82 S. C. 284, 64 S. E. 151, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1029; Cooke v. Paris Mt. Water Co., 82 S. C. 235, 64 S. E. 157; Foster v. Lookout Water Co., 3 Lea (Tenn.) 42; House v. Houston Waterworks Co., 88 Tex. 233, 31 S. W. 179, 28 L. R. A. 532; Wilk......
-
Collier v. Newport Water, Light and Power Co.
...41 Am. St. 654; 202 Mo. 324; 100 S.W. 651; 37 Neb. 546; 16 Neb. 44; 78 Hun 146; 28 N.Y.S. 987; 71 Ohio 250; 11 A. 300; 215 Pa. 275; 64 S.E. 157; 82 S.C. 235; 71 Tenn. 22 S.W. 277; 88 Tex. 233. Failure to furnish water was not the proximate cause of loss. 55 Ark. 510; 139 223; 133 Id. 387; 5......
-
Morton v. Washington Light & Water Co.
... ... Camden Water, Light & Ice Co., 82 S.C ... 284, 64 S.E. 151, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1029; Cooke ... 284, 64 S.E. 151, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1029; Cooke v ... Paris ... ...
-
Collier v. Newport Water, Light & Power Co.
...300, 8 Sadler (Pa.) 237; Thompson v. Springfield Water Co., 215 Pa. 275, 64 Atl. 521, 7 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 473; Cooke v. Paris Mt. Water Co., 82 S. C. 235, 64 S. E. 157; Ahcrum v. Camden Water & Light Co., 82 S. C. 284, 64 S. E. 151, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1029; Foster v. Lookout Water Co., ......