64 N. J. L. 27, 44 Atl. 354; Stephenson v. Cone. 24 S. D. 460, 26 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1207, 124 N. W. 439; Dickie v. Abstract Co., 89 Tenn. 431, 24 Am. St. Rep. 616, 14 S. W. 896.

20 Anderson v. Spriesterabach, 69 Wash. 393, 42 L. R. A. (N.S.) 176. 125 Pac. 166.

21 Arnold v. Barner, 91 Kan. 768, 139 Pac. 404; Gate City Abstract Co. v. Post, 55 Neb. T42, 76 N. W. 471; Gregory v. Harper, 61 Okla. 419, 152 Pac. 70; Scott v. Jordan, 55 Okla. 708, 155 Pac. 498.

22 United States. German-Alliance Ins. Co. v. Home Water Supply Co., 226 U. S. 220, 57 L. ed. 195, 42 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1000 [affirming, German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Home Water Supply Co., 174 Fed. 764, 42 L. R. A. (N-S.) 1005]; Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Co. v. Water Co., 94 Fed. 238.

Alabama. Lovejoy v. Bessemer Waterworks Co., 146 Ala. 374, 6 L. R. A. (N.S.) 429, 41 So. 76.

Arkansas. Cottier v. Newport Water, Light & Power Co., 100 Ark. 47, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 458, 139 S. W. 635.

California. Ukiah City v. Ukiah Water & Improvement Co., 142 Cal. 173, 100 Am. St. Rep. 107, 64 L. R. A. 231, 76 Pac. 773. (The city can not maintain an action for • injury to its property unless the contract is made for protection of such property specifically.)

Connecticut. Nickerson v. Hydraulic Co., 46 Conn. 24, 33 Am. Rep. 1.

Georgia. Fowler v. Waterworks Co., 83 Ga. 219, 20 Am. St. Rep. 313, 9 S. E. 673.

Idaho. Bush v. Artesian Water Co., 4 Ida. 618, 95 Am. St. Rep. 161, 43 Pac. 69.

Indiana. Fitch v. Water Co., 139 Ind. 214, 37 N. E. 982, 47 Am. St. Rep. 258.

Iowa. Davis v. Waterworks Co., 54 la. 59, 37 Am. Rep. 185, 6 N. W. 126; Becker v. Waterworks, 79 Ia. 419, 18 Am. St. Rep. 377, 44 N. W. 694.

Kansas. Mott v. Mfg. Co., 48 Kan. 12, 30 Am. St. Rep. 267, 15 L. R. A. 375, 28 Pac. 989.

Louisiana. Allen. & Currey Co. v. Shreveport W. W. Co., 113 La. 1091, 104 Am. St. Rep. 525, 68 L. R. A. 650, 37 So. 980 [overruling, Planters' Oil

Mill v. Monroe, 52 La. Ann. 1243, 27 So. 684].

Missouri. Howsmon v. Water Co., 119 Mo. 304 41 Am. St. Rep. 654, 23

L. R. A. 14ft, 24 S. W. 784; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Water Co., 42 Mo. App. 118.

Nebraska. Eaton v. Waterworks Co., 37 Neb. 54ft, 40 Am. St. Rep. 510. 21 L. R. A. 653, 55 N. W. 201.

Nevada. Ferris v. Water Co., 16 New 44, 40 Am. Rep. 485. . New Jersey. Baum v. Somerville Water Co., 84 N. J. L. 611, 46 L. R. A. (N.S.) 066, 87 Atl 140.

Ohio. Blunk v. Dennison Water Supply Co.. 71 O. S. 250, 73 N. E. 210; Akron Waterworks Co. v. Brownless, 10 Ohio C. C. 620, 5 Ohio C. D. 1.

Pennsylvania. Beck v. Water Co. (Pa.). 11 Atl. 300.

South Carolina. Ancrum v. Camden Water, Light & Ice Co., 82 S. Car. 284, 21 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1020, 64 S. E. 151.

Tennessee. Foster v. Waterworks Co., 71 Tenn. (3 Lea) 42.

Texas. House v. Waterworks Co., 88 Tex. 233, 28 L. R. A. 532, 31 S. W. 170.

West Virginia. Nichol v. Huntington Water Co., 53 W. Va. 348, 44 S. E. 290.

Wisconsin. Hayes v. Oshkosh, 33 Wis. 314, 14 Am. Rep. 760; Britton v. Waterworks Co.. 81 Wis. 48, 29 Am. St. Rep. 856, 51 N. W. 84.

"In many jurisdictions a third person may now sue for the breach of a contract made for his benefit. The rule as to when this can done varies in the different states. In some he must be the sole beneficiary. In others it must appear that one of the parties owed him a debt or duty, creating the privity, necessary to enable him to hold the promisor liable. Others make further conditions. But even where the right is most liberally granted it is recognized as an exception to the general principle, which proceeds on the legal and natural presumption, that a contract is only intended for the benefit of those who made it. Before a stranger can avail himself of the exceptional privilege of suing for a breach of an agreement to which he is not a party, he must at least show that it was intended for his direct benefit. For, as said by this court, speaking of the right of bondholders to sue a third party who had made an agreement with the obligor to discharge the bonds, they may have had an indirect interest in the performance of the undertakings, but that is a very different thing from the privity necessary to enable them to enforce the contract by suits in their own names.* Nat. Bk. v. Grand Lodge, 98 U. S. 123, 124, 25 L. ed. 75; Hendrick v. Lindsay. 93 U. S. 143, 149, 23 L. ed. 855; National Savings Bank v. Ward, 100 U. S. 195, 202, 205, 25 L. ed. 621.

"Here the city was under no obligation to furnish the manufacturing company with fire protection, and this agreement was not made to pay a debt or discharge a duty to the Spartan Mills, but, like other municipal contracts, was made by Spartanburg in its corporate capacity, for its corporate advantage and for the benefit of the inhabitants collectively. The interest which each taxpayer had therein was indirect - that incidental benefit only which every citizen has in the performance of every other contract made by and with the government under which he lives, but for the breach of which he has no private right of action." German-Alliance Ins. Co. v. Home Water Supply Co., 226 U. S. 220, 57 L. ed. 195, 42 L. R. A. (NS.) 1000 [affirming, German-Alliance Ins. Co. v. Home Water Supply Co., 174 Fed. 764, 42 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1005].

See, upon this question, Liability of Water Companies for Fire Losses, by Edson R. Sunderland, 3 Michigan Law Review 442, and Liability of Water Companies for Fire Losses - Another View, by Albert Martin Kales, 3 Michigan Law Review 501.

23 Jones House Furnishing Company v. Arkansaw Water Company, 112 Ark. 425, 52 L. R. A. (N.S.) 402, 166 S. W. 557.

24 Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Water Co., 42 Mo. App. 118.

25 German-Alliance Ins. Co. v. Home Water Supply Co., 226 U. S. 220, 57 L. ed. 195, 42 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1000 [affirming, German-Alliance Ins. Co. v. Home Water Supply Co., 174 Fed. 764, 42 L. R. A. (N.S.) 10051; Baum v. Somerville Water Co., 84 N. J. L. 611, 46 L. R. A. (N.S.) 966, 87 Atl 140; Nichol v. Huntington Water Co., 53 W. Va. 348, 44 S. L. 290.