Where by contract the duty of a municipality is assumed by a corporation, the case seems indistinguishable from any case where a debt or obligation is assumed. The obligation assumed may be pecuniary 11 or for performance of other kinds. Not infrequently a street railway company undertakes the duty of keeping in repair a portion of the streets adjacent to its tracks. The duty of repair is one to which the municipality is itself subject, and when the railway company assumes the duty, it has been held that thereby an obligation is created which may be enforced by an individual member of the public who is injured, directly against the company;12 and the same conclusion has been reached where a railroad company contracted with a city to assume the damages caused by a change of grade made by the city in its streets.13 But, as in any case of the assumption of a debt, it would seem that any right of such an individual against the corporation was in its nature merely derivative, and that his direct right remained after the contract, as before, against the municipality.

Miss. 389, 28 So. 877; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Trenton Water Co., 42 Mo. App. 118; Howsmon c. Trenton Water Co., 119 Mo. 304, 24 8. W. 784, 23 L. R. A. 146, 41 Am. St. Rep. 654; Mete v. Cape Girardeau Waterworks Co., 202 Mo. 324, 100 S. W. 651; Eaton v. Fairbury Water Works, 37 Neb. 646, 66 N. W. 201, 21 L. R. A. 653, 40 Am. Rep. 510; Ferris v. Canon Water Co., 16 Nov. 44, 40 Am. Rep. 485; Wain-wright v. Queens County Water Co., 78 Hun, 146, 28 N. Y. S. 987; Blunk v. Dennison Water Co., 71 Ohio St. 250, 73 N. E. 210; Beck v. Kittanning Water Co. (Pa.), 11 Atl. 300; Anenim v. Camden Water Co., 82 S. Car. 284, 64 S. . 151, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1029; Foster v. Lookout Water Co., 3 Lea, 42; House v. Houston Waterworks Co., 88 Tex. 233, 31 8. W. 179, 28 L. R. A. 532; Britten v. Green Bay Waterworks Co., 81 Wis. 48, 51 N. W. 84,29 Am. St. Rep. 856. ButseeMugge v. Tampa Water Works, 52 Fla. 371, 42 So. 81, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1171,120 Am. St. Rep. 207; Paducah Lumber

Co. v. Paducah Water Supply Co., 89 Ky. 340, 12 S. W. 554, 13 S. W. 249, 7 L. R. A. 77, 25 Am. St. Rep. 636; Gocrell v. Greensboro Water Supply Co., 124 N. C. 328, 32 S. E. 720, 46 L. R. A. 513, 70 Am. St. Rep. 598. In Pittsfield Cotton wear Co. v. Pitts-field Shoe Co., 71 N. H. 522, 53 Atl. 807, 60 L. R. A. 116 (commented on in 16 Harv. L. Rev. 456), in a case similar in principle the defendant was held liable in tort. See also supra, Sec.372a.

11In Porter v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 97 N. C. 46, 2 S. E. 374, the defendant contracted with the city of Charlotte to pay part of the salary of a policeman on duty at its depot. The policeman was held entitled to sue.

12 Jenree v. Metropolitan St. Ry., 86 Kans. 479,121 Pac. 510,39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1112; City of Brooklyn v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 47 N. Y. 475, 4S5; McMahon v Second Ave. R. Co., 75 N. Y. 231, 237.

13 Rigney v. New York etc. Co., 217 N. Y. 31, 111 N. E. 226.