44 Ga. App. 217 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1931
The petition of E. S. Gnann against Coastal Public Service Company, was dismissed on general demurrer, and the plaintiff excepted. The complaint was that the defendant was a waterworks company supplying water to the citizens of the City of Springfield, Georgia; that the plaintiff owned a house of the value of $1,000, situated in that municipality, which was destroyed by fire on account of the negligence of the defendant in failing to furnish an adequate supply of water to extinguish such fire, and that, because of the negligence of the defendant in this regard, it became liable to the plaintiff in the value of the house so burned and destroyed. It was further alleged: The defendant was “under contract and duty to furnish a continuous supply of water to its patrons and the City of Springfield,” and the plaintiff was “a patron and subscriber to the services of said defendant company for a valuable consideration.” In an amendment it was averred that the defendant, in its charter, was “granted the right to contract, in pursuance of which power . . it contracted with the City of Springfield to furnish electric power for lights and other electrical appliances and to furnish said Springfield with a water supply; that it entered into said duties, attempted to supply the inhabitants of Springfield with water, collected toll from said inhabitants therefor, and that under the law said defendant company is under a duty to use care in the exercise of its business of furnishing water; that it is under a duty to furnish a reasonable supply of water to its patrons and that inasmuch as it enjoys valuable privileges of using the town’s streets, and the right to deal with the citizens of the town in furnishing lights and water, — a public service — and inasmuch as it enjoys a monopoly of the water business in said town, it has valuable rights, and that in return for these rights it owes the citizens a duty, among which duty is that of furnishing a continuous and reasonable water supply.” The suit was expressly declared to be “an action in tort, and not one on the contract.” The allegations further showed that the plaintiff exercised all diligence to save the property from burning, but was unable to do so with the means at hand.
Upon a proper construction of the allegations of the peti
The petition failed to set forth a cause of action and the general demurrer was properly sustained.
Judgment affirmed.