Smith v. American Car Sprinkler Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
The land upon which the cutting was done was lot 31 in the third division in the town of Lempster, originally drawn to the right of the Glebe and known as “church land.”
Read the full summary
The land upon which the cutting was done was lot 31 in the third division in the town of Lempster, originally drawn to the right of the Glebe and known as “church land.” The plaintiffs claimed title under a warranty deed of said lot 31 from Orrin R. Howard, dated Aug. 7, 1912, and traced title through a warranty deed from Joe W. Bean to Howard, Jan. 19, 1911; a quitclaim deed to Bean from the Trustees of the Protestant Episcopal Church in New Hampshire, June 17, 1893; deed from the Trustees of Donations to the Protestant Episcopal Church, a Massachusetts corporation, to the grantor last above…
1Opinion of the CourtParsons, C. J.
The defendants’ contention that the statute upon which the action is founded has been repealed comes a little late but is clearly open to them. Glover v. Baker, 76 N. H. 261, 262; Petition of Moebus, 73 N. H. 350, 351; Hutchinson v. Railway, 73 N. H. 271, 272. It may b'e conceded that the action is not compensatory but punitory, that it is for a penalty, Morrison v. Bedell, 22 N. H. 234; Janvrin v. Scammon, 29 N. H. 280; Coulombe v. Eastman, 77 N. H. 368, and that the doing of an act to the performance of which a penalty is attached by statute is a violation of the statute. Williams v.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Davenport v. NewtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1898
3Cited by6 opinions
- Bennett v. LaroseSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1926
- Woodburn v. ChapmanSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1976
- Derosier v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1926
- Patten v. PattenSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1921
- Lemay v. LemaySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1930
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.