HYDRANTS AND CONTRACTS.
In the district court of Mesa county, Col., Judge Gabbert has recently rendered a decision as to hydrant rentals, which may be a guide elsewhere. The Grand Junction Water Compeny brought suit against Grand Junction City for hydrant rentals amounting to $14,200. The city answered and the plaintiff company moved tostrileout portions of the same, which the court summarized as follows: “ That the plaintiff company had failed to lay down steel,cast, or wrought iron pipes in the streets of the city, and in accord ance with the terms and conditions of the ordinance under which it was authorized to construct the work within the cor porate limits of the town, and, on the contrary, laid cement pipe that was inferior in quality, and not of the kind and character required by the ordinance; that the water pipes and mains were not of sufficient strength to stand the pressure re quisite to give the required test,and that the company had ,ot furnished water of the quality required,” The court sustained this material part of the answer in the following language.
“Now in determining the rights of parties under contract of this character we must not lose sight of the fact that is a city and the other is a corporation organized to lucius water to the city, and determine their rights by the same rule that you would of other parties to other contracts, whether c like or of a different character; and it is well settled by authoi ities-in fact it is a primary principle that we all know-that when a party seeks to recover upon a contract, he must show upon his part, a substantial compliance with the terms an conditions of that contract, If he fails to do this, he cann recover.”