German Alliance Insurance v. Home Water Supply Co.

after making the foregoing statement of facts, delivered the opinion of the court.

In Ancrum v. Camden Water Company, 82 S. Car. 284 , the Supreme Court of South Carolina, construing a contract much like the one here involved, held that a taxpayer could not maintain an action against a Water Company' for damage due to its failure to furnish water as required by such an agreement with the city. The plaintiff, however, contends that although the present suit is for damáge to property located in South Carolina, that decision is not of controlling authority, because it was rendered two years after this action was begun. Relying on Burgess v. Seli gman, 107 U. S. 20 , it insists that when the contract was made, February, 1900, there was no settled state law bn the subject, and therefore the Federal courts must decide for themselves, as matter of general law, the much controverted question as to a water company’s liability to a taxpayer for failure to furnish fire protection, according to the terms of its contract with the city.

The courts have almost uniformly held that municipalities are not bound to furnish water for. fire protection. Such was the unquestioned rule when they relied, as some still do, on wells and cisterns as a source of supply; nor was there any increase of liability with the gradual increase of facilities — though, with the introduction of reservoirs, standpipes; pumping stations and steam engines, cities were frequently sued for damages' resulting from an inadequate supply, or insufficient pressure. But the city was under no legal obligation to furnish the water; and if it voluntarily undertook to do more than the law required, it did not thereby.subject itself to a new or greater liability. It acted in a governmental capacity, and was

If the common law did not impose such duty upon a public corporation, neither did it require private companies to furnish fire protection to property reached by their pipes. And. there could, of course, be no liability for the breach of a common law, statutory or charter duty which did not exist. It is argued, however, that even if, in the first instance, the law did not oblige the company to furnish property owners with water, such a duty arose out of the public service upon which the defendant entered. But if, where it did not otherwise exist, a public duty could arise out of a private bargain, liability would be based on the failure to do or to furnish what was reasonably necessary to discharge the duty imposed. The complaint proceeds on no such theory. It makes no allegation that the defendant failed to furnish a plant of reasonable capacity, or neglected to extend the pipes where they were reasonably required. Nor is it charged that what the company actually did was harmful in itself or likely to cause injury to others, so as to bring the case within the principle applicable to the sale of unwholesome provisions, or misbranded poisons which, in their intended use, would be injurious to purchasers from the original vendee.- So that, notwithstanding numerous charges of culpable, wanton and malicious neglect of duty, this suit — whether regarded as ex contractu or ex delicto — is for breach of the provisions of the contract of February 14, 1900, which must, therefore, be the measure of plaintiff’s right and of the defendant’s liability.

Whether a right of action arises, out of such a contract, in favor of a taxpayer is a matter about which there has been much discussion and some conflict in decisions. Although for nearly a century it has been common for private corporations to supply cities with water under this'

From them it appears that the majority of American courts hold that the taxpayer has no direct interest qn such agreements and, therefore, cannot sue ex contractu. Neither can he sue in tort, because, in the absence of a contract obligation to him, the water company owes him no duty for the breach of which he can maintain an action ex delicto. A different conclusion is reached by the Supreme Courts of three States, in cases cited and discussed in Mugge v. Tampa Water Works, 52 Florida, 371. They hold that such a contract is for. the* benefit of taxpayers, who may sue either for its breach, or for a violation of the public duty which was thereby assumed.

The plaintiff presses these decisions to their logical conclusion and sues, — not for negligence in operating the plant, but for breach of the contract of construction. The complaint charges that as a direct consequence of the refusal to lay the pipes, as provided by the contract, there was no plug near enough to extinguish the fire. The other allegations as -to putting in 4-inch instead of 6-inch pipe and failing to install the electric cut-off are immaterial, except on the theory that if the property owner was, indeed, a beneficiary, it, after acceptance, would be en

In many jurisdictions a third person may now sue for the breach of a contract made for his benefit. The rule as to when this can.be done varies in the different States. In some he must be the sole beneficiary. In others it must appear that one of the parties owed him a debt or duty, creating the privity, necessary to enable him to hold the promisor liable. Others make further conditions. But even where the right is most liberally granted it is recognized as an exception to. the general principle, which proceeds on the legal and natural presumption, that a contract-is only intended for the benefit of those who made it. Before a stranger can avail himself of the exceptional privilege of suing for a breach of an agreement, to which he is not a party, he must, at least show that it was intended for his direct benefit. For, as said by this- court, speaking of the right of bondholders to sue a third party who had made an agreement with the obligor to discharge the bonds, they “may have had an indirect interest in the performance of the undertakings, but. that is a very different thing from the privity necessary to enable them to enforce the contract by suits in their own names.” Nat. Bk. v. Grand Lodge, 98 U. S. 123 , 124. Hendrick v. Lindsay, 93 U. S. 143 , 149; National Savings Bk. v. Ward, 100 U. S. 195 , 202, 205.

Here the city was under no obligation to furnish the manufacturing company with fire protection, and this

He is interested in the faithful performance of contracts of service by policemen, firemen, and mail-contractors, as well as in holding to their warranties the vendors of fire engines. All of these employés, contractors, or vendors are paid out of taxes. Hut for the breaches of their contracts the citizen cannot sue — though he suffer loss because the carrier delayed in hauling the mail, or the policeman failed .to walk- his beat, or the fireman' delayed in responding to an alarm, or the engine proved defective, resulting in his building being destroyed by fire. 1 Beven, Negligence in Law (3d ed.), 305; Pollock on Torts (8th ed.), 434, 547; Davis v. Clinton, 54 Iowa, 59 , 61.

Each of these promisors of the city, like the Water Company here, would be liable for any tort done by him to third persons. But for acts of omission and breaches of contract, he would be responsible to the municipality alone. To -hold to the contrary would unduly extend contract liability, would introduce'new parties with new rights, and would subject those contracting with municipalities to suits by a multitude of. persons for damages which were not, and, in the nature of things, could not . have been, in contemplation of the parties.

The result is that plaintiff cannot maintain this action, and though based upon the general principle that the parties to a contract are those who are entitled to its rights,

• If the company had, indeed, made a valid contract for the benefit of a third person, the amount of the damages for which it might be liable would be immaterial. Yet where there is no such express agreement, and liability to a taxpayer is sought to be raised by implication, it is proper to test the correctness of the proposed construction by noting the results to which it would lead. The contract was made in February, 1900, By its terms the city was, during a period of 10 years, to pay .$40 per annum for each hydrant. During that time the property subject to damage by fire might double or quadruple in valuer The failure to provide that the water rent, of $40 per hydrant should rise or fall with the increase or decrease in such values indicates that liability for damage to that property was not in the contemplation pf' the parties and that no payment therefor was included in the price for each hydrant. Otherwise the amount of payment would naturally have varied with the risk assumed.

In some States it is held that, in the absence of a statute, a city can neither directly nor indirectly make a contract with a water company that the latter should pay private individuals for fire damage, since that would involve the use of public money to secure a private benefit to the owner of private property. Hone v. Water Co., 104 Maine, 217. In Ancrum v. Water Co., sufra, the South Carolina court held that the amount paid per hydrant was so insignificant by comparison with the enormous risk involved, as clearly to indicate" that neither the city nor the water company intended that the latter should be hable to the taxpayer for a breach of the company’s contract with the city.

This conclusion deprives the property owner of no right, for if the city had owned the works, and had been guilty of the same acts as are charged against the water company

The plaintiff urges that, whatever the rule elsewhere, it is entitled to recover under the decision in Guardian Trust Company v. Fisher, 200 U. S. 57 . But the facts there differ from those in this record. There the water company had an exclusive right, to use the streets in the city of Greensboro, under an ordinance which, among other things, provided that “said water company shall be responsible for all damage sustained by the city, or any individual or individuals, for any injury sustained from the negligence of the said company, either in the construction or operation of their plant.” (p. 58.) Building's were destroyed as a result of the negligent failure of the company to furnish sufficient water while operating its plant. The owner brought suit against the water company in the courts of North Carolina, where it had previously been settled that such actions could be maintained. He recovered a judgment “for the tortious injury and damage done to the plaintiff by the negligence of the defendant.” 128 No. Car. 375; 115 Fed. Rep. 187 . Execution issued,'but no levy could be made, because the property of the water company was in possession of a receiver, appointed in foreclosure proceedings pending in the United States

It was urged, among other things, by the bondholders that the suit in the state court was really for breach of contract, and that entering the judgment as for a tort did not change the nature of the action.so as to entitle the plaintiff to the benefits of the North Carolina statute.

It was that question alone, as to the character of the suit and judgment, which was before this court. What was said in the opinion must be limited, under well-known rules, to the facts and issues involved in the particular record under investigation. The Fisher Case could not have decided the primary question as to the right of the taxpayer to sue, for that issue had been finally settled'by the state court. It raised no Federal question and was not in issue on the hearing in this court. Neither did the Fisher Case overrule the principle, announced in National Bank v. Grand Lodge, 98 U. S. 123 , 124, that a third person cannot sue for the breach of a contract to which he is a stranger unless he is in privity with the parties and is therein given a direct interest. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.