Smith v. Smith
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Case, for obstructing a sewer running from the plaintiff’s house on her lot to the defendant's barn cellar on his adjoining lot. Verdict for the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the widow, and the defendant is a son, of E. K. Smith, who formerly owned and occupied the land which is now divided into the two lots. The plaintiff’s house and the defendant’s bam are 100 feet apart, and the dividing line is 35 feet from the barn.
Read the full summary
Case, for obstructing a sewer running from the plaintiff’s house on her lot to the defendant's barn cellar on his adjoining lot. Verdict for the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the widow, and the defendant is a son, of E. K. Smith, who formerly owned and occupied the land which is now divided into the two lots. The plaintiff’s house and the defendant’s bam are 100 feet apart, and the dividing line is 35 feet from the barn. At one time the sewer ran in a different direction, and discharged at a different place. When E. K. Smith bought the land, he kept a large number of horses, cattle, and hogs in…
1Opinion of the CourtStanley, J.
There was no implied assignment to the plaintiff of an easement in the defendant’s lot that would put him to the alternative of abandoning his bam or becoming a manufacturer of manure. It is not and evidently cannot be found that the discharge of her sewage into his cellar is necessary for her use of her house. In some cases of reasonable easement not definitely located by contract or otherwise, there may be a question whether, on a bill in equity, each party can be compelled to bear a part of the expense of an alteration required by a change in the ownership or use of land. But here it does…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Batchelder v. State Capital BankSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1890
- Sandford v. BossSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1912