Beck v. Kittanning Water Co.

8 Sadler 237
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 31, 1887·No. No. 135·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam :

'The plaintiff in this case had no contract with the defendant for a supply of water for the extinguishment of fires; hence, it owed him no duty in this respect; and on the basis of such contract he had, of course, no cause of action. As to the contract with the borough, with that he had nothing to do. That was a matter between the municipality and the water company; and [247]*247his interest in it is too remote to raise such a privity therein as would enable him to maintain this suit

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Beck v. Kittanning Water Co., 8 Sadler 237 (Pa. 1887).

8 Sadler 237 (Beck v. Kittanning Water Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Doyle v. South Pittsburgh Water Co.
199 A.2d 875 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1964)
Rainey v. Natrona Water Co.
49 Pa. D. & C. 152 (Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas, 1943)
Hudak v. Scranton Spring Brook Water Service Co.
39 Pa. D. & C. 346 (Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, 1940)
Hay v. Connellsville Water Co.
4 Pa. D. & C. 731 (Fayette County Court, 1923)