Chapman v. Newmarket Manufacturing Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Case, for fiowage. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. Transferred from the April term, 1907, of the superior court by Wallace, C. J. The defendant’s title is by deeds from the plaintiff’s ancestor, which convey a right to flow by the use of a certain dam. The plaintiff claimed that this gave only a right to reasonably exercise the granted privilege.
Read the full summary
Case, for fiowage. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. Transferred from the April term, 1907, of the superior court by Wallace, C. J. The defendant’s title is by deeds from the plaintiff’s ancestor, which convey a right to flow by the use of a certain dam. The plaintiff claimed that this gave only a right to reasonably exercise the granted privilege. The court submitted to the jury the question whether the defendant “unreasonably used the water of the stream by improperly managing the dam,” and the defendant excepted.
1Opinion of the CourtPeaslee, J.
The defendant’s contention is, that because its deeds of fiowage rights are absolute in form, the right conveyed is without limitation, so far as the servient estate is concerned. This is not the law here. Abbott v. Butler, 59 N. H. 317; Franklin v. Durgee, 71 N. H. 186; Horne v. Hutchins, 71 N. H. 117, 124, and cases cited; Horan v. Brynes, 72 N. H. 93, 97; Berry v. Hutchins, 73 N. H. 310, 316.
An unlimited conveyance of an easement is, in law, a grant of unlimited reasonable use. Bean v. Coleman, 44 N. H. 539, 543, 544. No express restriction was necessary to save to the grantor the use of…
2Cited by13 opinions
- City of Pasadena v. California-Michigan Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1941
- Moulton v. Groveton Papers Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1972
- Wall v. RudolphCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- Patterson v. Chambers Power Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1916
- Russell v. Palos Verdes PropertiesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.