Winnipiseogee Lake Co. v. Young
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
In Equity. The bill states that the Winnipiseogee Lake Cotton and Woolen Manufacturing Company have long been and are seized of a waterfall and mill privilege at Folsom’s Falls, upon the Winnipiseogee river, in the towns of Laconia and Gilford, in the county of Belknap, of land near and around the same, and of the mills at said falls; that they derive their title on the north-west side of the centre of the river from N. Batchelder, who, on October 20, 1829, and for years…
Read the full summary
In Equity. The bill states that the Winnipiseogee Lake Cotton and Woolen Manufacturing Company have long been and are seized of a waterfall and mill privilege at Folsom’s Falls, upon the Winnipiseogee river, in the towns of Laconia and Gilford, in the county of Belknap, of land near and around the same, and of the mills at said falls; that they derive their title on the north-west side of the centre of the river from N. Batchelder, who, on October 20, 1829, and for years before and after, was seized thereof; on the south-east side of the centre of the river they derive title from the town of…
1Opinion of the Court
Bell, O. J.
The bill in this case, in its general frame and most material allegations, as to the complainants’ title to their dain, and right to flow, very closely resembles the bill recited in 29 N. H. 433. As to the first point raised by the demurrer, it is in the same terms. In that case the bill was taken as confessed after repeated appearances, and the defendant then moved that the bill should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction; among other reasons, because it was not stated that the complainants were a corporation. ' But the court say that the facts alleged in the bill are all…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- President of the Bank of Alabama v. SimontonTexas Supreme Court · 1847
- State v. EllisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1819
- State v. MeadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
- Union Mutual Insurance v. Osgood & AldenThe Superior Court of New York City · 1853
- Camden & Amboy Rail-Road & Transportation Co. v. RemerNew York Supreme Court · 1848
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Sandford v. Town of WolfeboroSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2005
- Boston, Concord & Montreal Railroad v. Boston & Lowell RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1888