Cooke v. Paris Mountain Water Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Cooke v. Paris Mountain Water Co.

64 S.E. 157, 82 S.C. 235, 1909 S.C. LEXIS 35

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 9, 1909

Docket7123

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 64 S.E. 157 (Cooke v. Paris Mountain Water Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cooke v. Paris Mountain Water Co., 64 S.E. 157, 82 S.C. 235, 1909 S.C. LEXIS 35 (S.C. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Woods.

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 and Ice Co., post 284, 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 *236 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 and 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.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Woods.

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 and Ice Co., post 284, 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 *236 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 and 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 S.E. 157, 82 S.C. 235, 1909 S.C. LEXIS 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooke-v-paris-mountain-water-co-sc-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack