Opinion of the Court. ditional; and the delivery, too, was conditional, for a specific purpose, and without any intention that the city should, by the making of the agreement, part with its title to the mains. In regard to the rights of the bondholders, although the purchasers of the bonds may have been influenced to purchase them by the terms of the resolution of December 6, 1883, and by the letters from the officers and citizens of the city introduced in evidence, the city was not thereby estopped from refusing to pay the rental for the hydrants, which by the terms of the mortgage was to be applied in payment of the interest on the bonds, or from having the contract cancelled. Although the bondholders exercised good faith in purchasing the bonds, they bought them knowing that the city was not a party to them, and that the payment of water rents by the city for the hydrants depended upon a continued compliance by the water company with the terms of the contract. The letters of the private citizens could not affect the city; and the letters from the officers of the city could not affect its rights, because they were not written by its authority or within the scope of their powers as its officers. The scope of the resolution of December 6, 1883, accepting the works, extended only to the fact that the provisions of the ordinance respecting their construction had been complied with and the test required by the ordinance had been satisfactorily made. It covered only the physical existence and condition of the artificial structures. The contract extended, however, to the amount of water which the works should be able actually and permanently to supply, and the character of the water to be supplied, all of which was uncertain, and the risk of which was assumed by Shelton and his assigns, their obligation being a continuing obligation, and their right to the continued enjoyment of the consideration for it being dependent upon their continuing to perform it. There was in the resolution of December 6, 1883, no guaranty that the water company could or would in the future comply with its contract. The liability of the city to pay in future the hydrant rents depended upon the future compliance of the water company with its contract; and in case of its failure the city would VOL. CXXXII-12 Opinion of the Court. have the right to ask for the rescission of the contract. This the bondholders knew when they purchased the bonds. The city entered into na contract with them, and the passage of the resolution of December 6, 1883, could not deprive the city of the relief to which it would otherwise be entitled, on the failure of the water company to comply with its contract. The provisions of the ordinance requiring the water company to furnish the amount of water called for by it, and that the water supplied by the works should be good, clear water, and the source of supply not be contaminated by the sewerage of the city, were known to the bondholders when they purchased the bonds, and they also knew that the payment of the hydrant rents which would go to pay the interest on the bonds must depend upon the furnishing of water by the water company according to the contract. Nor could the test required by the ordinance and satisfactorily made by the water company be a test of anything but the pressure power of the works. It could not be a test of the quantity of water which would thereafter be supplied by the works, nor of its continuing quality for domestic purposes. The resolution of acceptance cannot be considered as a guaranty to the bondholders that the water company would thereafter perform its contract for furnishing water in the quantity and of the quality called for by the ordinance. The bondholders were bound to take notice of the contents of the ordinance before purchasing their bonds, and purchased and held them subject to the continuing compliance of the water company with the terms of the ordinance. They bought the bonds as obligations of the water company, and not as evidences of indebtedness of the city; and they had information from the ordinance that the city would not be liable for hydrant rents if the water company failed to furnish water as agreed, and that if the water company neglected to comply with its contract the city would have the right to invoke the aid of a court of equity to enforce a cancellation of the contract. As to the old water mains, the trustee and the bondholders took the lien of the mortgage subject to the conditions of the agreement for the sale of them by the city to Shelton. Imme Opinion of the Court. diately after the passage of the rescinding resolution of June 1, 1885, the city proceeded to resume possession of the old mains, and its bill against the water company was filed immediately thereafter, and on the 20th of June, 1885. The water company never credited the city with any money due on account of rent for the hydrants, applying it as payment on account of the old water mains; nor did the city ever apply any money due by it to the water company for hydrant rents towards paying itself for the old mains. The principal contention on the part of the appellants is that, on the acceptance of the ordinance by Shelton, a right in the franchise vested in him, which could not be defeated even though he afterwards failed to comply with its terms; that the failure of the water company to furnish water in the quantity and of the quality called for by the ordinance was only a breach of a condition subsequent; and that a court of equity will not lend its aid to divest an estate for such a breach. But it seems to us that in respect to a contract of the character of the present one, the ability of the water company to continue to furnish water according to the terms of the ordinance was a condition precedent to the continuing right of Shelton and his assigns to use the streets of the city and to furnish water for a period of thirty years; and that when, after a reasonable time, Shelton and his assigns had failed to comply with the condition as to the quantity and quality of the water, the city had a right to treat the contract as terminated, and to invoke the aid of a court of equity to enforce its rescission. A suit for a specific performance of the contract, or a suit to recover damages for its non-performance, would be a wholly inadequate remedy in a case like the present. The danger to the health and lives of the inhabitants of the city from impure water, and the continued exposure of the property in the city to destruction by fire from an inadequate supply of water, were public questions peculiarly under the care of the municipality; and it was entitled and bound to act with the highest regard for the public interests, and at the same time, as it did, with due consideration for the rights of the other parties to the contract. We see no error in the decree of the Circuit Court, and it is Affirmed. Opinion of the Court. WALLACE v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 855. Submitted January 10, 1890.- Decided January 27, 1890. An envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States to Turkey was never appointed before July 13, 1882. On that day, the claimant, being minister resident and consul general of the United States to Turkey, at a salary of $7500 a year, was appointed to the higher grade. By each of the diplomatic appropriation bills of 1882, 1883 and 1884, $7500 was appropriated for the salary of an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to Turkey. The claimant, having been paid the $7500 salary for each of those years, sued in the Court of Claims to recover the difference between that amount and an annual salary of $10,000, claiming the latter under § 1675 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by the act of March 3, 1875, c. 153, 18 Stat. 483; Held, that as, under the amendment of 1875, the salary was to be $10,000, "unless where a different compensation is prescribed by law," and the office did not exist before July 1, 1882, and the first provision made by Congress for a salary for it was made by the act of July 1, 1882, and was for $7500, and the same provision was continued while the claimant thereafter held the office, and he was paid the $7500, he had no further claim. The case distinguished from that of United States v. Langston, 118 U. S. 389. APPEAL from the Court of Claims. Judgment there against the claimant. Mr. George A. King for appellant. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Cotton and Mr. Robert A. Howard for appellees. MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims, dismissing the petition, in a suit brought by Lewis Wallace against the United States. The findings of fact were as follows: "1. The claimant was, on the 13th day of July, in the year 1882, appointed envoy extraordinary and minister plenipoten Opinion of the Court. tiary of the United States to Turkey, and held that office continuously from the time of said appointment till and including the 24th day of August, 1885. (Commission of claimant and letter of Secretary of State.) "2. The Secretary of State, in the estimate of the appropriations for the diplomatic and consular service for the following fiscal years made the following specific estimate for the salary of the representative in Turkey as follows, to wit: "Ministers resident in "Turkey. Turkey at $7500 each (for fiscal year ending June 30, 1883). "Envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary to and to Turkey, $7500 (for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1884). 666 "Envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary to and to Turkey, $7500 (for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1885), 666 Envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary to Turkey, $7500; additional submitted, $2500 (for fiscal year ending June 30, 1886).' "3. With his appointment or commission claimant also received the following notice from the Secretary of State: "DEPARTMENT OF STATE, "WASHINGTON, July 21, 1882. "Lewis Wallace, Esquire, etc., etc., etc., "SIR: Congress having recently raised the grade of the legation at Constantinople to a plenipotentiary mission, and the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, having appointed you to be envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Turkey, I beg to transmit herewith the following papers: . . "The act of Congress does not increase your compensation or contemplate other changes than as herein mentioned. You are referred to the personal instructions given you as minister resident, June 4, 1882, for the conduct of the business of the |