Pittsfield Cottonwear Manufacturing Co. v. Pittsfield Shoe Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Case, for negligence. The declaration states the following facts: The plaintiffs occupy a part of the 'lower floor of a mill building, called the Drake & Sanborn mill, consisting of a basement, three stories, and an attic. The remainder of the mill was in possession of the Drake & Sanborn Shoe Company, though the attic was in fact unoccupied.
Read the full summary
Case, for negligence. The declaration states the following facts: The plaintiffs occupy a part of the 'lower floor of a mill building, called the Drake & Sanborn mill, consisting of a basement, three stories, and an attic. The remainder of the mill was in possession of the Drake & Sanborn Shoe Company, though the attic was in fact unoccupied. The plaintiffs’ occupation was under rental from the Drake & Sanborn Company, and began April 1, 1900. _ The defendants occupied another mill building, distant about 150 feet from the Drake & Sanborn building. Between the two mill buildings was a…
1Opinion of the CourtParsons, C. J.
No claim is made of lack of heat in that part of the premises occupied by the plaintiffs. Whether the occupation of the premises by the plaintiffs, as tenants of the Drake & Sanborn Company, and the consent of the defendants to furnish them with heat, presumed from their continuance in performance with knowledge of the change in occupation, gave the plaintiffs any right in the contract so far as it is related to the premises occupied by them, need not therefore be considered. The wrong alleged is the invasion of the plaintiffs’ premises and the injury to their g’oods by water flowing from the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Savings Bank v. WardSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Gill v. MiddletonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Roddy v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Osborne v. MorganMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
- Losee v. . CluteNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Attleboro Mfg. Co. v. Frankfort Marine, Accident & Plate Glass Ins.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1917
- Doyle v. South Pittsburgh Water Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
- Dobbie v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 1928
- Corson v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1970
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. PhilipSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1972
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.