Hone v. Presque Isle Water Co.
Decision Date | 09 June 1908 |
Citation | 71 A. 769,104 Me. 217 |
Parties | HONE et al. v. PRESQUE ISLE WATER CO. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
(Official.)
Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Aroostook County.
Action by John J. Hone and David A. Hone against the Presque Isle Water Company. Demurrer to the complaint sustained, and plaintiffs except. Exceptions overruled.
Action on the case brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant water company to recover damages for the loss of certain buildings owned by them and destroyed by fire, on the ground that the loss resulted from the negligent failure of the defendant water company to keep a certain hydrant in proper repair and condition for use. The declaration contained two counts, which are as follows:
The defendant water company filed a general demurrer to the declaration. The demurrer was sustained by the presiding justice, and the plaintiffs excepted.
Argued before WHITEHOUSE. STROUT, SAVAGE, PEABODY, CORNISH, and KING, JJ.
Powers & Archibald and Louis C. Stearns, for plaintiffs.
Ira G. Hersey and Charles F. Daggett, for defendant.
This is an action on the case, brought by individual owners of property destroyed by fire, to recover damages for their loss against the defendant water company on the ground that it resulted from the negligent failure of the defendant to keep its hydrants in proper condition for use.
The defendant filed a general demurrer to the plaintiffs' declaration. The demurrer was sustained by the presiding justice, and the case conies to the law court on exceptions to that ruling.
It is alleged in the first count in the declaration that, by virtue of a special act of the Legislature, the defendant company, a public service corporation, constructed a system of waterworks and undertook the duties of a public water company, and began to furnish water for public and private uses, including the furnishing of water in hydrants to be used in extinguishing fires within the limits of the village corporation in Presque Isle known as the "Presque Isle Village Fire Department"; that it thereby became the duty of the defendant to keep its hydrants in proper condition for use in the extinguishment of fire in that village; that its hydrants were so carelessly maintained that the water in the hydrant opposite the Presque Isle Opera House, owned by the plaintiffs, was frozen, and the hydrant rendered useless,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Collier v. Newport Water, Light and Power Co.
...30 Am. St. 267; 15 L. R. A. 375; 28 P. 989; 17 B. Mon. 722; 66 Am. D. 186; 131 La. 1091; 104 Am. St. 525; 104 Me. 217; 71 A. 769; 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1021; 78 Miss. 389; So. 877; 42 Mo.App. 118; 119 Mo. 304; 24 S.W. 784; 23 L. R. A. 146; 41 Am. St. 654; 202 Mo. 324; 100 S.W. 651; 37 Neb. 54......
-
Morton v. Washington Light & Water Co.
...under a contract with a city or corporation to furnish water for the extinguishment of fire." The same is substantially said in 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1021, all the more recent cases on the subject are collected, presenting a uniform course of decision, the three cases deciding otherwise being......
-
Strauss v. Belle Realty Co.
...the public is seen to be the more improbable when we recall the crushing burden that the obligation would impose (cf. Hone v. Presque Isle Water Co., 104 Me. 217, at 232 )" (Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co., 247 N.Y. 160, 165, 159 N.E. Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of demonstrati......
-
Reimann v. Monmouth Consol. Water Co., A--73
...896, 62 A.L.R. 1199 (Ct.App.1928); Nickerson v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co., 46 Conn. 24 (Sup.Ct.Err.1878); Hone v. Presque Isle Water Co., 104 Me. 217, 71 A. 769, 21 L.R.A.,N.S., 1021 (Sup.Judic.Ct.1908); Beck v. Kittanning Water Co., 8 Penn.Cas. (Sadler) 237, 11 A. 300 (Sup.Ct.1887); Blunk v......