RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES

OF

GAS COMPANIES.

Practice.

-Fraud.

ACCOUNT.

Statute. The plaintiffs sued the defendant for the price of 7,129,300 cubic feet of gas, sold and delivered during a period of nearly five years. The defendant as to part of the claim, paid money into court, and pleaded as to the residue "never indebted" and full satisfaction and payment. He then obtained an order under the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, § 3, compulsorily referring the action on the ground that the matter in dispute was wholly or in part one of "mere account" which could not conveniently be tried by a jury. The plaintiffs tried to rescind this order, alleging that they proposed at the trial to prove that the defendants had been guilty of fraudulent conduct by the secret abstraction of their gas, and that upon this question, which would regulate the damages awarded, they were entitled to a verdict of held that the imputation of fraud made no difference; that it jury, but it was was matter of "mere account," and could not be conveniently tried by a jury.

Birmingham & Staffordshire Gas Co. v. Ratcliff, L. R. 6 Exch. 224 (1871).

See DIRECTORS, 1; EVIDENCE, II.; MANDAMUS, 2; PATENts, 1.

ACTION.

See TROVER; ASSUMPSIT; QUO WARRANTO; MANDAMUS; DEBT; TRESPASS; AGENCY, 12; CHARTER, 6, 11, 16; CONTRACT, 3, 4, 5, 7,

12, 14, 15; CONTRACTOR, 1, 2, 3; DAMAGES; DIRECTOR, 2, 7; EviDENCE; FRAUDULENT TAKING, 2; HIGHWAY; LANDLORD AND TENANT; MUNICIPALITY, IV.; STATUTES, 3.

ADMISSIONS.

See EVIDENCE, 21.

AGENCY.

I.

NEGLIGENCE OF AGENT.

1. Negligence of Agent. Explosion. In an action for damages for injuries received from the explosion of gas, it appeared that the defendants had introduced gas into a house occupied by the plaintiff by means of pipes leading through the cellar wall, and that an escape of gas occurred, of which the company were promptly notified; that they at once sent one of their servants

a common laborer to ascertain where the leak was, and that he lighted a match in the cellar, causing a terrific explosion, by which the house was blown to pieces and the plaintiff seriously injured; and it was held that "the evidence of the defendants' negligence was clear and decisive; that the casualty was the direct and immediate consequence of the explosion, and this was caused by the negligent act of the defendants' agent;" that "S. was exclusively the defendants' agent," and that the act done was in the line of his agency, and that "S.'s duties extended to such an examination as was necessary to determine the locality of the leak wherever it was, and the catastrophe originated in the improper method resorted to by him for the purpose of pursuing such examination;" and that it was immaterial that the leak was in the brass head, a pipe belonging to the plaintiff, and not in the service-pipe, the property of the defendants.

Lannen v. Albany Gas-Light Co., 46 Barb. 264; s. c. 44 N. Y. 459.

2. Damages. Explosion. Former Agent.— A gas-light company which has nothing to do with the gas pipes and fixtures inside of the meters, except to see that they are tight when they

turn on the gas in the buildings to which it furnishes gas, is not made responsible in damages for an injury caused by an explosion of gas in the plaintiff's room, into which it had escaped by reason of its having been negligently turned on while the end of a gas-pipe leading into the room was open, because it has, without making any objection, merely suffered and permitted a person, employed by the gas consumers to put in their pipes and fixtures, to let on the gas after so doing: the person having been previously the defendant's agent to let on gas, but such agency had terminated some time before, and the plaintiff had been informed of such termination; and such permission is not sufficient to constitute such person an agent of the company, for whose acts it is responsible.

Flint v. Gloucester Gas-Light Co., 3 Allen, 343; 9 Allen, 552.

3. Negligence. Explosion. The defendant, a gas-fitter, was employed by the plaintiff's master to repair a gas-meter upon his premises, and, for the purpose of doing so, found it necessary to take away the meter, and replaced it by a temporary connection, consisting of a flexible tube between the inlet pipe and the pipe communicating with the house. The plaintiff having gone, in the ordinary performance of his duty, with a light into the cellar where the meter had been, gas, which had escaped by reason of the insufficiency of the connecting tube, exploded when he opened the cellar door, and injured him. The jury found that the work had been negligently done, and that the injury to the plaintiff proceeded entirely from such negligence, and it was held by LOPES, J., that "the plaintiff's right of action was founded on a duty which attaches in every case where a person is using or is dealing with a highly dangerous thing, which, unless managed with greatest care, is calculated to cause injury to bystanders ;" and the action was maintained.

Parry v. Smith, L. R. 4 Com. Pl. D. 325 (1879); 33 Gas J. 899.

4. Action.

Liability for Tort. - Ratification. -No Appointment by Seal. In an action of trover for property of the bankrupt converted by the defendants after the bankruptcy, it appeared that the goods had been distrained for money due the

defendants for gas supplied to the bankrupt before his bankruptcy; that the seizure was made by one Lumley, who, it was admitted, had no authority under seal, but the plaintiff gave evidence to show that the proceeds of the sale had been received by the defendants; and it was held that a corporation is liable in tort for the tortious act of its agent, though not appointed by seal, if such act be an ordinary service, such as a distress professedly made under a statute for a debt due to the corporation; and that a jury may infer the agency from an adoption of the act by the corporation, as from their having received the proceeds of the seizure.

Smith v. Birmingham & Staffordshire Gas-Light Co., 1 Adolph. & Ellis, 526 (1834); s. c. 3 Nev. & Man. 771.

5. Master and Servant.

Explosion of Gas. In an action for damages for injuries received from an explosion of gas, it appeared that the plaintiff was a barmaid in the employ of the defendant, and that the latter went with a lighted candle and "swab," to bind a gas-pipe from which gas was escaping in consequence of a "natural defect" therein; that an explosion followed by which the plaintiff was injured; that there was evidence that the pipe was stopped with putty, grease, and muck; and the defendant denied that he had taken the "swab" to mend the pipe with; that, after a verdict was found for the plaintiff, leave was reserved to move for nonsuit, and it was held that a master was not liable for injuries that a servant suffers in the ordinary course of his employment, and the action could not be maintained.

Warren v. Wilder, 20 Gas J. 892. Q. B. N. P.

6. Estoppel. Action of Third Party. Where the defendants permitted one T., although no longer in their employ, to turn on the gas for new customers when such customers desired it, and the plaintiff knew that his connection with the defendants had ceased, and the turning on of the gas was properly the business of the company, it was held that these facts did not constitute T. the agent of the defendants, or estop them from denying his agency.

Flint v. Gloucester Gas-Light Co., 9 Allen, 552.