Allard v. Carleton
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Bill in Equity, praying for partition of a spring and aqueduct leading thereto, owned in common by the plaintiffs and the defendant. Facts found by a referee. There is no practicable mode of dividing the property in question, and no mode of ascertaining when the defendant has his share of the water, but by conducting all the water to a reservoir, and thence distributing it to the several owners ; and that would entail an unwarranted expense.
Read the full summary
Bill in Equity, praying for partition of a spring and aqueduct leading thereto, owned in common by the plaintiffs and the defendant. Facts found by a referee. There is no practicable mode of dividing the property in question, and no mode of ascertaining when the defendant has his share of the water, but by conducting all the water to a reservoir, and thence distributing it to the several owners ; and that would entail an unwarranted expense. A sale of the property would be inequitable because the plaintiffs are in a condition to become purchasers, and the defendant is not. The defendant has…
1Opinion of the CourtBlodgett, J.
Whatever is capable of being divided may be the subject of partition in equity (Allnatt, Partition, 84) ; and the inconvenience or difficulty of making partition is no objection. 1 Sto. Eq. Jur. (12th ed.), s. 656. Moreover, for the sake of convenience, in equity a recompense may be made by a. sum of money to one of the parties, so as to prevent injustice or unavoidable inequality fib., ss. 654, 656) ; or the court may order a sale of the subject-matter, and a division among the several owners according to their respective titles, as its powers are adequate to a full compensatory adjustment.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Thruston v. MinkeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1870
- Coleman v. LaneSupreme Court of Georgia · 1858
- Royston v. RoystonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1853
- McGillivray v. EvansCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Gregory v. . GregorySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1873
3Cited by2 opinions
- Patten Paper Co. v. Kaukauna Water-Power Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
- Hale v. JaquesSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1898