Bassett v. Salisbury Manufacturing Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
In Equity. The bill set forth that, on the 30th of August, 1854, the plaintiff, Thomas Bassett, was lawfully seized of certain lands described, consisting of eight tracts, partly in Kingston, East-Kingston, and Newton.
Read the full summary
In Equity. The bill set forth that, on the 30th of August, 1854, the plaintiff, Thomas Bassett, was lawfully seized of certain lands described, consisting of eight tracts, partly in Kingston, East-Kingston, and Newton. On that day, and ever since, the Salisbury Manufacturing Company have maintained, kept up, and continued, a dam over and across Powow Biver, at Trickling Ealls, in East-Kingston, and have thereby, aud by keeping the same higher than they have a right to do, wrongfully, &c.,- caused the water of said river, and the water falling upon and flowing into the lands of said plaintiff,…
1Opinion of the CourtBell, C. J.
The plaintiff moves that this plea may be set aside on several grounds ; (1) because it is a mere dilatory plea; (2) and because a former dilatory plea having been pleaded, two dilatory pleas successively are not allowed.
Neither the present nor the former plea seem to us dilatory. Both go to the merits of the case. Neither suggests any defect in the proceedings. The last is pleaded to the whole bill, and if allowed, it is a final answer to the bill. It seems intended for a denial of the main fact, on which an injunction is asked, that the defendants have flowed the plaintiff’s land. On this…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Bogardus v. Trinity ChurchNew York Court of Chancery · 1833
- Hughes v. BlakeSupreme Court of the United States · 1821
- Heartt v. CorningNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
- Souzer v. De MeyerNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
- Dows v. McMichaelNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.