Black v. City of Columbia

Citations

• 19 S.C. 412
• 1883 S.C. LEXIS 92

Syllabus

<p>1. The word “ understanding ” falls short of alleging a distinct and express contract between the parties.</p> <p>% The plaintiff brought action for damages against a municipal corporation, based upon the destruction of his house by fire, resulting from an inadequate supply of water, to a sufficient supply of which he claimed to be entitled by reason of a water tax assessed upon such property by the city and paid by him. Held, on demurrer, that the action was for a tort, and, therefore, as against a municipal corporation, could not be sustained.</p> <p>3. A contract made by the officers of a municipal corporation to insure to a taxpayer an adequate supply of water to extinguish fires, would not be binding upon the corporation unless the officers had the right to make such a contract. The officers of the city of Columbia have no such right.</p> <p>4. An action cannot be maintained in this State against a municipal corporation for the non-performance of a public duty, there being no statute authorizing it. The functions of municipal corporations considered.</p> <p>5. Power to supply the city with water having been given by statute to- a municipal corporation, a duty was thereby imposed which required the exercise' of judgment and discretion, and was not, therefore, purely ministerial.</p> <p>6. White v. Gity Council of Charleston, 2 Hill 571, and Coleman v. Chester, 14 S. C 286, recognized and followed.</p>