This action was instituted by the town of Ukiah City to recover damages against the defendant water company for the destruction of plaintiff’s property by fire, the liability of defendant being predicated upon its negligence, and upon the breach of its contract with the plaintiff for supplying water in its supply-pipes and fire-hydrants under sufficient pressure for effective use. A general demurrer was interposed to the complaint and overruled. The defendant answered, and trial was had resulting in a verdict of the jury, under the instructions of the court, in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant moved for a new trial, which motion was granted, and plaintiff appeals from this order.

The learned judge of the trial court expressed his views upon granting the motion for a new trial, in the following language :—

These views and the conclusions expressed are hereby adopted as the views and conclusions of this court. A consideration of the cases presented by appellant to this court, which cases were not before the learned judge of the trial court, do not in any wise serve to shake the soundness of the conclusions which he there expressed. Paducah Lumber Co. v. Paducah Water Supply Co., 89 Ky. 340 , charged upon an express contract, whereby, for the granting of a franchise for forty years, the water company agreed, with other things, for the benefit of the inhabitants of the town and their property, to maintain “two pumping-engines each having capacity to force into the stand-pipe two million gallons of water every twenty-four hours, and to keep a head of water sufficient to throw from any eight of the- hydrants simultaneously and for five consecutive hours at any one period of time, streams through fifty feet of hose one hundred feet high.” A recovery was sought for the breach of the express terms of this contract. Gorrell v. Water Supply Go., 124 N. C. 328 , was in principle identical with the Paducah case, which it cites with approval. There, too, it was alleged that the defendant company “contracted to furnish said city with pure and wholesome water for the use of its citizens and of force at all times sufficient to protect the inhabitants of the city against loss by fire. And further to erect and maintain reservoirs, water-towers, pump-houses, and other appurtenances and attachments necessary or expedient for the proper conducting and carrying on said waterworks so as to supply at all times the greatest protection against fire.” And to maintain “a pressure of water for fire purposes sufficient to throw six streams of water from six hydrants to a vertical height of one hundred feet in still air, each stream being taken from one hydrant and with one hundred feet of hose and with a one-inch ring nozzle, and the said companies shall constantly day and night, except from unavoidable accidents, keep all the said hydrants supplied with water for fire purposes and shall keep them in good order for such service.” In Planter’s Oil Mill v. Monroe Waterworks etc. Co., 52 La. Ann. 1243 , a franchise and grant for thirty years had been made by the city with the defendant company under this express contract: “To supply and have ready at all times for use in pipes and hydrants erected on the premises by plaintiff as a protection against fire, water in sufficient quantities and with a specified force of pressure sufficient to serve the purpose of the extinguishment of fires.” The supreme court, dealing with the facts of the case, declared that the municipality is not liable in damages where it has a contract with a private company which fails adequately to meet its obligations, but that it is not so clear that the private company making such contract and failing to meet its duties thereunder may not be held answerable to the citizen for loss he sustains in consequence of such failure. In each of these cases it will be observed that the court was dealing with contracts whereby the water. companies for valuable concessions and exclusive privileges had agreed to do and to maintain certain specific things by way of protection from fire, and the gravamen of the charge against each and all of the companies was, that they had violated their contract in failing to do the particular things for the doing of which they had expressly contracted. The broad distinction between those cases and the one at bar is, as pointed out in the opinion of the trial judge, that there is no express covenant in the contract between this plaintiff and this defendant, and the security to plaintiff’s property was only the same security which in the exercise of its governmental functions the plaintiff had obtained for the whole town.

■ The only other cases cited by appellant are Kentucky cases following the decision in the Paducah case, above cited, and the case of Watson v. Inhabitants of Needham, 161 Mass. 404 . In this last case an action by a citizen against the town, which itself was supplying the water, was upheld; but that was under a doctrine at variance with the established rule in this state, which denies a right of action against a municipality for damages occasioned by the negligence of its officials or employees. (Huffman v. San Joaquin Go., 21 Cal. 426 ; Chope v. City of Eureka, 78 Cal. 591 ; Sievers v. San Francisco, 115 Cal. 655 . )

The order appealed from is therefore affirmed.

McFarland, J., and Lorigan, J., concurred.

Hearing in Bank denied.

66 Am. Dee. 186. 50 Am. Bep. 750. 25 Am. Bep. 90. 51 Am. St. Bep. 667. 57 Am. Bep. 665. 2 Am. Bep. 368. 45 Am. Bep. 785. 56 Am. St. Bep. 153. 18 Am. St. Bep. 377. 37 Am. Bep. 185. 29 Am. St. Rep. 856 . 40 Am. Rep. 485 . 33 Am. Rep. 1 . 20 Am. St. Rep. 313 .' 40 Am. St. Rep. 510 . 47 Am. St. Rep. 258 . 30 Am. St. Rep. 267 . 41 Am. St. Rep. 654 . 70 Am. St. Rep. 598 . 51 Am. St. Eep. 667. 25 Am. St. Eep. 536. 25 Am. St. Bep. 536. 70 Am. St. Bep. 598. 2 Am. St. Rep. 113 . 56 Am. St. Bep. 153.