State v. Wimpfheimer
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Information, in the nature of a quo warranto, tiled by the attorney-general against the defendants, who are in possession of the office of water commissioners of the city of Somersworth.
1Opinion of the CourtChase, J.
By chapter 143, Laws 1891, the town of Somersworth was authorized “ to construct, manage, maintain, and own suitable water-works,” for the purpose of supplying the inhabitants of the village of Great Falls with water. It was required to place the works under the control of a board of water commissioners consisting of three suitable persons, not more than, two of whom should belong to the same political party. The selectmen of the town were authorized to appoint the board, and it was to have such powers and duties as were prescribed by the town from time to time.
The town was made a city in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. DavisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
3Cited by8 opinions
- Silva v. BotschSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1981
- Ex Parte BurnsCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1949
- Hines v. HarmonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
- Cram v. Inhabitants of County of CumberlandSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1953
- Foster v. Town of HudsonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1982
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.