Dow v. Electric Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
. Petition, under the flowage act, for the assessment of damages. The plaintiffs’ land was bounded by the Piscataquog river at “ high-water mark.” The Piscataquog is a fresh-water river. The court instructed the jury that the words “ high-water mark ” meant that line on the river bank where vegetation ceased, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover damages to their land by flowage to that line. The defendants excepted.
1Opinion of the CourtWallace, J.
The high-water mark on fresh-water rivers is not the highest point to which the stream rises in times of freshets, but is “ the line which the river impresses upon the soil by covering it for sufficient periods to deprive it of vegetation and to destroy its value for- agriculture.” Gould Wat., s. 45; Howard v. Ingersoll, 13 How. 381; In re Minnetonka Lake, 56 Minn. 513; Houghton v. Railroad, 47 Ia. 370. The instructions to the jury were in accordance with this principle. ,
Exception overruled.
' Pike, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Howard v. IngersollSupreme Court of the United States · 1852
- Carpenter v. Board of County Com'rsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
- Houghton v. C., D. & M. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1877
3Cited by9 opinions
- Vratsenes v. N. H. Auto, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1972
- Long v. LongSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1992
- South Dakota Wildlife Federation v. Water Management BoardSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1986
- Business Publication, Inc. v. StephenSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1995
- Cary Brick Co. v. TiltonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1913
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.