Daly v. City of Carthage
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court. — Hon, Henry. L. Bright, Judge. A city cannot accept the benefits of the water supplied it by a waterworks company and then, when sued for a recovery of the amount agreed to be paid for the: supply of water, urge that the amount supplied was; insufficient and for that reason there was a failure to comply 'with the contract, and hence the company is not entitled to recover anything.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court. — Hon, Henry. L. Bright, Judge. A city cannot accept the benefits of the water supplied it by a waterworks company and then, when sued for a recovery of the amount agreed to be paid for the: supply of water, urge that the amount supplied was; insufficient and for that reason there was a failure to comply 'with the contract, and hence the company is not entitled to recover anything. If it wanted to escape , payment altogether, it should have terminated the contract and refused to accept any water at all. Joplin W. W. Oo. v. Joplin, 177 Mo. 496; Water and Light…
1Opinion of the CourtCox, J.
The original plaintiff in this case was the Carthage Water and Power Company, and by con- ,- sent this plaintiff has been substituted as party plaintiff as assignee of the water and power company. Plain*567tiff seeks' by this action, to recover water rents alleged to be dne him from the city of Carthage under contract described as ordinance No. 665 of said city, for the period-of time extending from January 1, 1904, to January 9, 1905, for which he alleges there is due the sum of $8065.77.
The answer admits the contract and pleads the ordinance in full, and alleges that plaintiff cannot recover in…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Aurora Water Co. v. City of AuroraSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Little Rock v. North Little RockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904
- Springfield Seed Co. v. WaltMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Lamar, Water & Electric Light Co. v. City of LamarSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Turner v. MellierSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Loveland v. WarnerOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Van RaalteMissouri Court of Appeals · 1924
- Seattle, R. & S. Ry. Co. v. City of SeattleDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1914