Legal Opinion

Potter v. Carolina Water Company

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 12, 1960No. 91PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRodman, J.

Defendant, by motion to nonsuit and by exception to the charge as a whole, challenges plaintiffs’ right to recover notwithstanding the undisputed testimony that there was a total failure to furnish any water to the hydrants during the critical period, and because of such failure plaintiffs’ property was destroyed. It bases its denial of liability on two propositions: (1) Breach of a definite and specific contract between a private corporation and a municipality to furnish water for fire purposes creates no right of action in a citizen who suffers damage as a result of such breach; (2) even if…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Gorrell v. Greensboro Water Supply Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1899
  2. Pinnix v. ToomeySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  3. Council v. Dickerson's, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  4. Hill v. RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  5. Wells v. ClaytonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Weinberg v. DingerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1987
  2. Bulova Watch Co. v. Brand Distributors of North Wilkesboro, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  3. Shoffner Industries, Inc. v. W. B. Lloyd Construction Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
  4. Harris v. Board of Water and Sewer Com'rs of City of MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1975
  5. CF Industries, Inc. v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.District Court, W.D. North Carolina · 1978

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API