Woodbury v. Parshley
Superior Court of New Hampshire
This was an action upon the case. The declaration alleged, that the plaintiff was seized of a meadow adjoining Nippo Pond, in Barrington, and that the defendant, by means of a dam by him erected upon his own land, across the outlet of the said pond, caused the water to overflow and injure the meadow, from the 30th August, 1830, to the 19th July, 1832, — when this action was commenced.
Read the full summary
This was an action upon the case. The declaration alleged, that the plaintiff was seized of a meadow adjoining Nippo Pond, in Barrington, and that the defendant, by means of a dam by him erected upon his own land, across the outlet of the said pond, caused the water to overflow and injure the meadow, from the 30th August, 1830, to the 19th July, 1832, — when this action was commenced. The cause was tried upon the general issue, at January term, 1834, when it appeared in evidence, that the dam which caused the injury of which the plaintiff complained, was erected originally in 1827, by the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court.
Richardson, C. J.
The first question to be settled in this case, is, whether parol evidence was admissible to prove a licence to flow the plaintiff’s meadow ?
This question has been settled on sound and satisfactory *239principles. It is now held, that the statute of frauds does not apply to a parol agreement for an easement for seven years in the lands of another, such as a right of way, or a'privilege of placing 'goods'upon land, or a license lo he exercised upon land. ' ■ -
Thus'in Taylor's v. Waters. 7 Tannton, 374, it was held, that a license to attend a. theatre for twenty-one…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Millerd v. ReevesMichigan Supreme Court · 1848
- Ameriscoggin Bridge v. BraggSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1840
- Sampson v. BurnsideSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1842