It may also be true that no citizen is a party to such a contract, and has no contractual or other right to recover for the failure of the company to act, but if the company proceeds under its contract, constructs and operates its plant, it enters upon a public calling. It occupies the streets of the city, acquires rights and privileges peculiar to itself. It invites the citizens, and if they avail themselves of its conveniences and omit making other and personal. arrangements for a supply of water, then the company owes a duty to them in the discharge of its public calling and a neglect by it in the discharge of the obligations imposed by its charter or by contract with the city, may be regarded as a breach of absolute duty and recovery may be had for such neglect. The action however, is not one for breach of contract but for negligence in the discharge of such duty to the public. and is an action for a tort." Guardian Trust Co. v. Fisher. 200 U. S. 57. 50 L. ed. 367.

29 Fisher v. Greensboro Water Supply Co., 128 X. Car. 375, 38 S. E. 912.

30Guardian Trust Co. v. Fisher, 200 U. S. 57, 50 L. ed. 367.

3l Duncan v. Owensboro Water Co. (Ky.), 12 S. W. 557, 12 Ky. L. R. 35; Duncan's Executors v. Owensboro Water Co. (Ky.), 15 S. W. 523, 12 Ky. L. R. 824; Graves County Water Co. v. Ligon, 112 Ky. 775, 66 S. W. 725 [following, Paducah Lumber Co. v. Pa-ducah Water Supply Co., 89 Ky. 340, 25 Am. St. Rep. 536, 7 L. R. A. 77, 12 S. W. 554, 13 S. W. 249].

This theory seems to be adopted in some of the North Carolina cases. See, Gorrell v. Greensboro Water Supply Co., 124 X. Car. 328, 70 Am. St. Rep. 508. 46 L. R. A. 513, 32 S. E. 720; Jones v. Durham Water Co., 135 X. Car. 553, 47 S. E. 615.

32 Walton v. Proutt, 117 Ark. 388. L. R. A. 1915D, 917, 174 S. W. 1152; Rob-bins v. Bangor Railway & Electric Co.. 100 Me. 496. 1 L R. A. (N.S.I 963, 62 Atl 136: Pond v. New Rochelle Water Co.. 183 X. Y. 330. 1 L. R. A. (N.S) 956. 76 X. E. 211.

33 Durnherr v. Ran, 135 N. Y. 219, 32 N. E. 49.

34Durnherr v. Ran, 135 N. Y. 219, 32 N. E. 49. The "covenant was with the husband alone."

35 Sullivan v. Sullivan, 161 N. Y. 554, 56 N. E. 116; Dutton v. Pool, 1 Vent. 318 [distinguishing, Tod v. Weber, 95 N. Y. 181. 47 Am. St. Rep. 20; Buchanan v. Tilden, 158 N. Y. 109,

70 Am. St. Rep. 454, 44 L. R. A. 170, 52 N. E. 724].

36 Berry Harvester Co. v. Machine Co., 152 N. Y. 540, 46 N. E. 952.

37 Constable v. Steamship Co., 154 U. S. 51. 38 L. ed. 903.

38 Freeman v. Ry., 32 Fla. 420, 13 So. 892.

39 St. Louis, etc., Ry. v. Neel, 56 Ark. 279, 19 S. W. 963.

40Lorillard v. Clyde, 122 N. Y. 41)8, 19 Am. St. Rep. 514, 10 L. R. A. 113, 25 N. E. 917.

41 Pettibone v. R R., 148 Mass. 411, 1 L. R. A. 787, 19 N. E. 337.

42 John Horstmann Co. v. Waterman, 103 Wash. 18, 1 A. L. R. 856, 173 Pac. 733.

43 Anglo-American, etc., Association v. Campbell, 13 D. C. App. 581, 43 L. R. A. 022. For a similar case see Burton v. Larkin, 36 Kan. 246, 59 Am. Rep. 541, 13 Pac. 396.

44 Fielders v. Ry., 68 N. J. L. 343,

96 Am. St. Rep. 553, 59 L. R. A. 455, 53 Atl. 404, 54 Atl. 822 [reversing, 67 N. J. L. 76, 50 Atl. 633].

45 United States Steel Products Co v. Poole-Dean Co., 245 Fed. 533. (The principal contractor can not avoid liability on this theory.) Lonergan v. San Antonio Loan & Trust Co., 101 Tex. 63. 104 S. W. 1061 [rehearing denied, Lonergan v. San Antonio Loan & Trust Co., 40l Tex. 63, 106 S. W. 876].

46 Beatti Mfg. Co. v. Clark, 208 Mo. 89, 106 S. W. 29.