House v. Houston Waterworks Co.

• Decision Date: 16 March 1893
• Citation: House v. Houston Waterworks Co., 22 S.W. 277 (Tex. App. 1893)
• Parties: HOUSE v. HOUSTON WATERWORKS CO.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

22 S.W. 277

HOUSE v. HOUSTON WATERWORKS CO.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

March 16, 1893.

Appeal from district court, Harris county; James Masterson, Judge.

Action by Henry House against the Houston Waterworks Company. Defendant obtained judgment on demurrer to the petition. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

O. T. Holt and A. T. Patrick, for appellant. Hutcheson, Carrington & Sears, for appellee.

WILLIAMS, J.

Appellant's petition based his right to recover — First, upon a violation by appellee of its contract with the city of Houston to furnish water for the extinguishment of fires; and, second, upon a breach of a duty to so furnish water, which it is claimed appellee owed to all of the inhabitants of that city, and therefore to appellant, growing out of its quasi public nature, and the character of the privileges which it enjoyed, and the work which it was bound to perform, under that contract and the ordinances of the city.

1. The contract set up in the petition does not differ materially from those, the effect of which has been passed upon and adjudged in many reported cases. It was with the city of Houston, and bound the appellant to furnish water to the fire department for the extinguishment of conflagrations, so far as the means and instrumentalities specified in the contract were capable of producing it. Appellant was no party to the agreement, and cannot base an action upon its breach unless he is to be treated as a person for whose benefit it was made, in such sense as to entitle him to sue upon it. In some sense, all contracts entered into by a municipal corporation may be considered as made for the benefit of its constituents. But this does not enable every individual who fails to reap the advantage intended to be secured to him and the other citizens of the municipality to sue the contractor for his failure to observe his contract. As was said by the supreme court of Iowa in a case like this: "One whom the law regards as a stranger to the contract cannot maintain an action thereon. The rule is founded in the plainest reason. The contracting parties control all interests, and are entitled to all rights, secured by the contract. If mere strangers may enforce the contract by actions on the ground of benefits flowing therefrom to them, there would be no certain limit to the number and character of actions which would be brought thereon. The case before us is not an exception to the rule we have stated. The city, in the exercise of its lawful authority to protect the property of the people, may cause water to be supplied for extinguishing fires, and for other objects demanded by the wants of the people. In the exercise of the authority it contracts with defendant to supply the water demanded for these purposes. The plaintiff received benefits from the water thus supplied, in common with all the people of the city. These benefits she receives just as she does other benefits from the municipal government, as the benefits enjoyed on account of improved streets, peace and order enforced by police regulations, and the like." Davis v. Waterworks Co., 54 Iowa, 59, 6 N. W. Rep. 126. See, also, Becker v. Waterworks,...