Huntress v. Effingham
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Petition for a highway in Effingham. The petition was made and filed and the order of notice issued on the 22d day of March, 1843, and returned at the April term of the court of common pleas, next ensuing, where the' defendants were defaulted.
Read the full summary
Petition for a highway in Effingham. The petition was made and filed and the order of notice issued on the 22d day of March, 1843, and returned at the April term of the court of common pleas, next ensuing, where the' defendants were defaulted. The petition was referred to the road commissioners, at the coming in of whose report at the April term, 1845, the town appeared, and objected to its acceptance, for the reason that, as they offered to show, there had not been such an application to the selectmen of Effingham to lay out the road prayed for, and such refusal of the selectmen to lay it…
1Opinion of the Court
"Woods, J.
The jurisdiction of the court of common pleas over petitions for the laying out of highways, is limited and special, depending upon particular exigencies described in the statute. In such cases a well founded and established rule of pleading requires that the petition to the court should contain a statement of all the facts necessary to give jurisdiction to the court; and if it fail to do so the proceedings may be suppressed at any stage. 1 Williams’ Saund. 74, n. 1, Peacock v. Bell; Hoit v. Molony, 2 N. H. Rep. 322; Cooke v. Powell, 2 Ld. Raym. 1310. These allegations being…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bates v. LoomisNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Hoit v. MolonySuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1821
3Cited by1 opinion
- Schoff v. Upper Connecticut River & Lake Improvement Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1876