Niehaus Bros. Co. v. Contra Costa Water Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Page, MeCutehen & Knight, and M. C. Chapman, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtLorigan, J.
This action was brought to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract to supply water to the premises of plaintiff for fire protection through which failure its mill was destroyed. Plaintiff had judgment for $128,645.42 and defendant appeals therefrom, and from an order denying its motion for new trial.
On August 15, 1901, plaintiff, the owner of a planing mill in that portion of Berkeley, known as “West Berkeley,” had upon its premises seven hydrants installed thereon for fire purposes by its predecessors, at their own expense, many years before. When said hydrants were so established,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Gorrell v. Greensboro Water Supply Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1899
- Paducah Lumber Co. v. Paducah Water Supply Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1889
- Hunt Bros. Co. v. San Lorenzo Etc. Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
- Hall v. Scott's Adm'rCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1890
- Town of Ukiah City v. Ukiah Water & Improvement Co.California Supreme Court · 1904
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- H. R. Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Rose v. Sapulpa Rural Water Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1981
- Stuart v. Crestview Mutual Water Co.California Court of Appeal · 1973
- White v. Southern California Edison Co.California Court of Appeal · 1994
- Heieck and Moran v. City of ModestoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.