Smith v. Philadelphia
This text of 81 Pa. 38 (Smith v. Philadelphia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court
The claim here is not for damages arising from the bursting of the water-pipes laid by the city, but for the loss of the water caused by the bursting of the pipes leading to the plaintiff’s houses, from the action of frost. The real claim is for the' loss of the water, and this will not implicate the city in any loss beyond the consideration paid for its use, viz., the water-rents, and these were allowed. The introduction of water by the city into private houses is not on the footing of a contract, but of a license which is paid for.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
81 Pa. 38, 1876 Pa. LEXIS 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-philadelphia-pa-1876.