Goddard v. Berlin Mills Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtPeaslee, C. J.
These suits involve water rights on the Androscoggin river. The plaintiff claimed damage caused by flowage and by floating logs. The defendant denied the flowage, and also claimed a right to flow. It excepted to the denial of its motions for nonsuits and for directed verdicts. One ground taken is that there was no evidence of flowage.
An expert in hydraulics, called by the plaintiff, testified that the dam and flashboards would affect the height of the water at the plaintiff’s premises. One produced by the defendant denied the proposition. Each sought to sustain his position by numerous data…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Tuttle v. DodgeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1922
- Colburn v. GrotonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1889
- St. Laurent v. Manchester Street RailwaySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1915
- Mason v. Dover, Somersworth & Rochester Street Ry.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1919
- Chapman v. Newmarket Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1908
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Moulton v. Groveton Papers Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1972
- Brown v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.California Court of Appeal · 1947
- State v. HarmonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1936