Legal Opinion

Pierce v. Boston & Maine Railroad

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided December 4, 1928PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtBranch, J.

It was a statutory duty of the defendant “to provide suitable crossings” over its tracks “for the accommodation of the public.” P. S., c. 159, s. 1; P. L., c. 249, s. 1. “A bridge carrying highway travel over a railroad is a crossing, within the meaning of this statute.” Laconia v. Railroad, 81 N. H. 408, 409; Concord v. Railroad, 69 N. H. 87. Such structures are regarded in law not as parts of the highways but parts of the railroad, which it is “bound to keep in repair suitable for the public travel thereon.” Laconia v. Railroad, supra, 411; Worcester &c. Railroad v. Nashua, 63 N. H. 593,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Kelsea v. StratfordSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1921
  2. Worcester, Nashua & Rochester Railroad v. NashuaSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1885
  3. Concord v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1896
  4. Laconia v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1925
  5. Dickey v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1899

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Shea v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1937

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API