Concord v. Burleigh
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, for the expense of removing a building from a street in Concord. Facts found by the court. June 7,1890, the plaintiffs’ mayor gave the defendant a written license to move a wooden building, then situate on Spring street, through the streets to her lot on Marshall street.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for the expense of removing a building from a street in Concord. Facts found by the court. June 7,1890, the plaintiffs’ mayor gave the defendant a written license to move a wooden building, then situate on Spring street, through the streets to her lot on Marshall street. One ordinance of the city provided that “No person shall move or assist in moving any . . . building through any street ... in the city, without first obtaining a written license from the .mayor and aldermen.” Another ordinance forbade any person to erect, move, or enlarge any wooden building within the limits of…
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
The authority of the city council to adopt the ordinances — in legal effect, local statutes — is unquestionable. G. L., a. 48, s. 10, cl. vii. The mayor’s license without the concurrence of the aldermen did not authorize the defendant to move the building into or through the streets. The fact that a license by the mayor alone had been customarily given and acted upon as sufficient authority cannot avail her against the express terms-of the ordinance. Fisher v. Steward, Smith (N. H.) 60, 62; Rogers v. Allen, 47 N. H. 529; Scribner v. Hollis, 48 N. H. 30.
The defendant was enjoined from placing…
2Cited by4 opinions
- May v. City of LaramieWyoming Supreme Court · 1942
- Moulton v. Groveton Papers Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1974
- Jarvis v. ClaremontSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1927
- Struble v. Republic Motor Truck Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1921