his only responsibility was for any default of C. in not paying for the gas furnished him.

Manhattan Gas-Light Co. v. Ely, 39 Barb. 174 (1863).

Consideration for Contract.

Nui

27. Opening Highway. sance. The plaintiffs, a highway board, agreed with the defendants, a gas company, that if the plaintiffs would give the defendants a license to open a highway in their jurisdiction, the defendants should make good the surface of the road, and would pay to the plaintiffs 1s. per yard of the highway so broken up, and it was held that the contract was valid; for that the agreement of the plaintiffs to allow the defendants to interfere with the surface of the highway was a good consideration, and the contract was not illegal and did not necessarily contemplate the creation of a nuisance by the defendants.

The Edgeware Highway Board v. The Harrow District Gas Co., L. R. 10 Q. B. 92; 24 Gas J. 793 (1874).

See AGENCY; DIRECTOR, 6, 7, 8; STOCK OF GAS COMPANIES, 2; LANDLORD AND TENANT, 3; NAVIGABLE WATERS, 1; NOTICE, 5; PATENT, 3; STATUTES, 12; TAXATION, 2, 8; SUPPLY OF GAS.

-

CONTRACTOR.

1. Negligence of Contractor. Nuisance. Liability of Gas Company. The defendant obtained permission from the proper authorities to lay gas-pipes in the street, and contracted with C. to lay them. The trench in which the pipes were laid having been improperly refilled, the earth settled, and the plaintiff's horse was injured by a fall into the trench. In an action to recover damages for the injury to the horse it was held that the plaintiff could maintain his action against the gas company, on the ground that they were obliged to restore the street to a safe condition, and for failing to do so, after having by their act rendered the use of the highway hazardous, they would be guilty of nuisance, and that they cannot avoid the consequences of a failure to restore the street by showing that they contracted with others to perform their duty for them.

McCamus v. Citizens' Gas-Light Co. of Brooklyn, 40 Barb. 380 (1863).

2. Damage to Gas Mains by Contractor in constructing Sewers. -The plaintiffs had laid their gas-pipes under the authority of a vote of the vestry, confirmed by the proper authorities. The defendant was a contractor, who, in laying sewerage-pipes and acting under statutory authority, had caused the plaintiffs' gaspipes to break. In an action to recover damages for the injury to the gas-pipes, it was held that as the damage was caused by the contractor's negligence, and as the proprietors had allowed the gas-pipes to be laid in their land, judgment should be entered for the plaintiffs.

Croft & Hurworth Gas Co. v. Pryor, 31 Gas J. 386.

3. Action by Contractor.

Gas Company.

Damage to Street Sweepings by The police commissioners of the city of Glasgow sold to a contractor the whole dung and sweepings of the city, as the same should be laid down in their depot, for the period of a year, and during the year a gas company opened up several streets to lay pipes, and the sand and rubbish raised by them, being mixed with the police sweepings, considerably diminished their value. In an action by the contractor for damages, it was held that the contractor had a title to sue the gas company for damages on account of the deterioration caused by their operations, notwithstanding the injury was done before the sweepings were brought to the depot.

Fisken v. City & Suburban Gas Co. of Glasgow, 2d Series Court of Sess. C. Vol. 12, p. 757; 12 Dunlop, 757; 22 Jurist, 262 (1850).

4. Negligence. Explosion. Where damage was caused by an explosion of gas, the gas company claimed that the defendant, a contractor, was the cause of the accident, and that he had been at work at the sewer near where their main was laid, and had not properly filled in the earth. The question was submitted to the jury, viz. Did the defendant produce a state of things that ended in a rupture of the company's pipe, and so let out the gas into the premises and caused an explosion? The jury found for the defendant.

:

Phoenix Gas-Light & Coke Co. v. Dethick, 14 Gas J. 536 (Exch. 1865).

5. Damage to Pipes.

Liability to Gas Company.

- Under a

special contract to build a sewer for a city, the contractor was held to be liable for any damage done by him to the pipes of the Harlem Gas Light Company in constructing the sewer.

In re Houghton, 27 N. Y. Supreme (20 Hun), 395.

6. Contractor.

Liability of Sub-Contractor. Laying GasPipes. GORDON J.: "By agreement between the Pittsburg Gas Co. and Wray, the latter undertook to dig a trench in which to lay gas-pipes of said company. This work was to be done under the supervision of the company's engineer. By a sub-contract, Wray passed the job to Davis. In the execution of his contract with Wray, Davis proceeded to dig the trench, into which the plaintiff fell and broke his leg. Davis employed and supervised the hands who did the work, and Wray had no control whatever over them." And it was held that the action could not be maintained against Wray.

Wray v. Evans, 80 Pa. St. 102 (1875).

See DAMAGES, 11; NUISANCE, 25; NEGLIGENCE, 25.

CORPORATIONS.

See ASSUMPSIT; CHARTER; CONTRACT, II; ULTRA VIRES; DEBTS; BONDS, 3; CONSOLIDATION.

COUPONS.

See BONDS, 3.

DAMAGES.

I.

MEASURE AND ELEMENTS OF.

1. Loss of Profits. - Action for Damages. Refusal to supply Gas, Waiver. The plaintiff applied to the defendants for gas, and was required to sign a written application stating the number of burners needed, which he refused to do, because it was so connected with an agreement to abide by the rules that

he could not sign it without being bound by the latter, which the court had held in another action to be unreasonable; and in an action for damages it was held that his refusal to sign it did not prevent him from maintaining an action for damages for refusal to supply gas, for the company by presenting the application in that shape for signature waived their right to insist on his making the application in any other shape; and it was further held that the plaintiff was entitled to such damages as would compensate him for his pecuniary loss, and also for the inconvenience and annoyance experienced by him in his mercantile business arising out of defendants' refusal to furnish gas to him; and that he might give evidence to show the nature and extent of his business, and that it was inconvenient and difficult to transact it without gas, and that the want of gas, he alone being deprived of it, made his store less attractive to customers, and tended to diminish his business.

Shepard v. Milwaukee Gas-Light Co., 15 Wis. 318 (1862).

2. Annuity not Measure for Damages. Where the plaintiff, a butler in the employ of a club, was injured by the defendants' negligence, and incapacitated from performing the duties of that office for the rest of his life, it was held that the measure of damages was not the amount of an annuity which would be equal to his annual salary as such butler, as it could not be proved that he would have retained his situation for life. Rapson v. Cubitt, Carrington & Marshman, 64; 9 Meeson & Welsby, 710 (1841).

Measure of Damages.

3. Loss of Profits. In an action for damages for unlawfully cutting off her supply of gas, where the plaintiff, who kept a boarding-house, claimed a loss of profits and that her boarders left her house because the gas supply was cut off, it was held that the law allows the loss of profits to be assessed as damages only when such loss can be traced directly to the immediate breach of contract or omission of duty declared upon, and that in this case the loss of profits was too remote, uncertain, and unreliable, upon the plaintiff's evidence, to form a basis for damages.

Morey v. Metropolitan Gas-Light Co., 38 N. Y. Superior, 6 J. & S. 185 (1874).

4. Breach of Contract to supply Gas. - Depreciation of Real Estate. Cost of removing Fixtures. In an action for damages for injuries to the plaintiff in consequence of the illegal cutting off the gas from the plaintiff's store under a contract to supply the same, it was held that in estimating the damage the jury may consider the depreciation in the value of the estate either for sale or rental, and may include the cost of removing the gas fixtures and replacing them, and of restoring the premises.

Gas-Light Co. of Baltimore v. Colliday, 25 Maryland, 1.

Elements of Damage.

5. Obstruction of Vessel by Gas-Pipe. -The charterer of a vessel who was subjected to expense in getting the vessel off from and over a gas-pipe of the defendants, which was an unlawful obstruction to the navigation of Mystic River and upon which the vessel had caught in passing along the river, can recover as damages the actual expense of getting the vessel free from the obstruction, but not for any delay in his business or other consequential damage.

Benson v. Malden & Melrose Gas-Light Co., 6 Allen, 149 (1863).

- In

6. Nuisance. - Elements of Damage. Injury to Well. an action for damages for injury to the plaintiff's well and to his premises by the noxious odors and substances from the gasworks, it was held that, in ascertaining the true measure of damages, all the circumstances connected with the injury can be considered by the jury; that the cost of obtaining a sufficient quantity of water equally pure with that supplied from his well before its injury by the gas-works, and the cost of keeping the conductors and other machinery for so doing in repair, would be proper elements of damage; that the depreciation of the value of the property by reason of the erection of the gas-works was also a proper element of damage, but if the property would sell for the same amount, independent of a rise in similar property, then there would be no loss, but if it would not, then the difference would be the damages sustained.

Ottawa Gas-Light & Coke Co. v. Graham, 28 Ill. 73 (1862).

See CONTRACT, 20; NUISANCE; NEGLIGENCE, I., IV.