Roberts v. Claremont Railway & Lighting Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Petition, for an injunction. Transferred from the May term, 1906, of the superior court by Wallace, C. J. The case is the same as that reported, in 73 N. H. 121. After the decision in Claremont etc.
Read the full summary
Petition, for an injunction. Transferred from the May term, 1906, of the superior court by Wallace, C. J. The case is the same as that reported, in 73 N. H. 121. After the decision in Claremont etc. Co. v. Putney, 73 N. H. 431, the plaintiff filed a motion in the superior court, asking that the defendants be enjoined from drawing water from Sugar river through their canal, and that the amount he is entitled to recover from them because of their use of his share of the water be determined; and the defendants filed a motion in the nature of a petition for partition, alleging that the parties…
1Opinion of the CourtYoung, J.
The plaintiff is trying to prevent the defendants from using their share of the water without his consent, even if that may be done without trespassing on his laud or interfering in any way with his making a like use of his share of the water, and they are seeking to avoid paying for the benefit they have received from their use of his share. The rule that riparian proprietors have a right “ to insist that the stream shall continue to run uti currere solebat” (Tillotson v. Smith, 32 N. H. 90), on which the plaintiff seems to rely, is subject to the limitation that the owners of the land…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Blanchard v. BakerSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1832
- Patten Paper Co. v. Kaukauna Water-Power Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by3 opinions
- Wisniewski v. GemmillSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1983
- Ficklen v. Fredericksburg Power Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1922
- North Side Canal Co. v. Twin Falls Canal Co.District Court, D. Idaho · 1926