George v. Fisk & Norcross
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Case, brought to recover damages of the defendants as partners, under the firm of Fisk & Norcross, for causing the obstruction of the Pemigewasset river, by means of logs placed therein, whereby the plaintiff’s land was flowed and injured.
Read the full summary
Case, brought to recover damages of the defendants as partners, under the firm of Fisk & Norcross, for causing the obstruction of the Pemigewasset river, by means of logs placed therein, whereby the plaintiff’s land was flowed and injured. The declaration contained four counts, the first of which was as follows: “ In a plea of the case for that the plaintiff, on the first day of February, A. D. 1850, at Woodstock aforesaid, was, and ever since has been, seized of a tract of land in said Woodstock, and bounded on the north by land of Charles Fifi eld, east by land of David Woodbury, south by…
1Opinion of the CourtEastman, J.
Taking the order in which the questions in this case are raised, and the first one presented arises upon the ruling of the court in denying the motion for a nonsuit.
The plaintiff had declared that he was seized of a tract of land in Woodstock, and that the defendants, not ignorant thereof, had caused to be placed in the Pemigewasset river, large quantities of logs, timber and trees, and wrongfully and negligently permitted the same to accumulate, obstruct and dam up the river before and near the plaintiff’s land, and opposite to the same, and neglected properly to direct, drive and float the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Crary v. SpragueNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- Starr v. JacksonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Jackson ex dem. Potter v. BaileyNew York Supreme Court · 1806
- White v. KiblingNew York Supreme Court · 1814
- Miles v. O'HaraSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1811
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Cox v. HunterAlabama Court of Appeals · 1957