TABLE OF CASES PUBLISHED IN VOLUME V OHIO DECISIONS. Adams v. Parnell................. 190 Connor v. Cincinnati........ Adelbert College v. Railway Co............ 240 Corthell v. State........................................................................ Ætna Iron Co. v. Taylor.............. ............. 242 Andrews Iron Co. v. Smead Co............ Aylmore v. Kahn......... Baker v. Lamkin........... 356 Crull v. Morgan........ 199 123 1 Cotell v. State.............................................................................. 472 6 228 Cromwell v. Herron........... 196 274 460 Crumler v. C., H. & D. R. R....... 353 495 Baker v. Speyer & Co........................................................................ 335 Daykin v. Emery...... 121 46 B. & O. R. R. Co. v. McCamey...... 631 Dennis v. Hanson.......... 465 157 542 421 242 Donaldson v. State.... Dyer v. Hagerty........ 394 DockCo.v. McCaferty. 98 701 262 408 597 572 Berry v. Hass...... 48 Blair et al. v. Oil and Gas Co......... 619 96 115 Gates v. Pond......... 297 .................................... 222 Gawlack v. M. C. Ry. Co........... 313 333 Gaylord et al. v. Hubbard, Co. Treas...... 529 616 Burnap v. Sylvania Co. Byard v. Railway Co.......... 582 Gillett v. Miller..... 588 Greiss v. Wilkop............ 203 Ginn v. (Comrs.) Wonders................................................................. 412 194 Hackman v. Cedar......... 23 Hamilton City v. Stilwaugh.. C., C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. McKelvey....... 561 Hankey v. Kramp...... Com'rs. Butler Co. v. Welliver................. 569 Heller v. Hohman....... Com'rs. v. State........ Cone v. Rees......... C & H. Turnpike v. Hester.. Hellebush v. Erdhouse............ 293 324 439 488 553 183 338 397 362 266 544 176 349 Plant v. Marks........... Higgins v. Higgins....... 117 90 631 561 168 277 v. Yokes 599 Jaffray & Co. v. Weatherby...................... 201 Russell v. Tippin. 443 2305-15-16-18-19-20.....139 5201.............................................................. ..636 6408..... ...138-139 5205. 2366-79-84................ ..200 5207. .........375-8 5218-24... 2410-11-12-15-35...........375 5225.... ..........125 5227. 2640....................... 92-670 5231. 571 6134-5............................................. REPORTS OF CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF OHIO. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-DEFECTIVE WATER SUPPLY. [Summit Circuit Court, September Term, 1895.] Caldwell, Hale and Marvin, THE AKRON WATER-WORKS COMPANY V. BROWNLESS ET AL. 1. CITY NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES BY FIRE BY REASON OF DEFECTIVE WATE SUPPLY. Certain municipal corporations in this state are given power by the state to erect and maintain water-works for supplying water, etc., and such power is, its nature, legislative and governmental; and a city is not liable to individuals for damages to their property by fire caused by a want of supply of water in the pipes or by reason of too low a pressure. 2. PRIVATE CONSUMER CANNOT SUE WATER COMPANY FOR NONCOMPLIANCE CONTRACT WITH CITY. TH When a city contracts with a company to supply the water, there is no contract relation between such company and the private consumer that will enable the consumer to sue the company for a noncompliance with the contract between the city and the company. 3. WATER COMPANY LIABLE ONLY TO EXTENT CITY WOULD BE LIABLE. Under such a contract the city is acting in its legislative and governmental capacity, and the water-works company is the agent of the city so far as consumers are concerned, and is liable to the consumer by reason of such contract only to the extent the city would be liable if it furnished the water directly to the consumer. 4. CHARGE TO JURY—ABSTRACT PROPOSITIONS OF LAW. It is misleading for the court to charge abstract propositions of law to the jury where there are no facts to which such a proposition of law can apply; and if it is apparent from the record that the plaintiff in error was prejudiced by such charge the case will be reversed. 6 С. С. 1 |