Court Opinion

ID: 6235207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-17 20:30:56.916935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:58:01.670700
License: Public Domain

Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court
Per Cdriam.
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.