Sewall's Falls Bridge v. Fisk & Norcross
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Case. The writ contained two counts. The first was as follows : “ For that whereas the plaintiffs, at Concord, on the twenty-seventh day of May, 1847, and for a long time prior thereto, were seized and possessed of a certain toll-bridge over the Merrimack river, called Sewall’s falls bridge, in the northerly part of Concord aforesaid, and were entitled, and did receive, of divers persons for passing over the bridge, and for the passing over of the teams, carriages, horses…
Read the full summary
Case. The writ contained two counts. The first was as follows : “ For that whereas the plaintiffs, at Concord, on the twenty-seventh day of May, 1847, and for a long time prior thereto, were seized and possessed of a certain toll-bridge over the Merrimack river, called Sewall’s falls bridge, in the northerly part of Concord aforesaid, and were entitled, and did receive, of divers persons for passing over the bridge, and for the passing over of the teams, carriages, horses and other creatures, large sums of money as toll, to wit: the sum of $1000 per year; and the defendants, well knowing the…
1Opinion of the CourtEastman, J.
The plaintiffs, by their charter, were empowered to build a bridge where the one destroyed had been erected. This gave them the right to make" the bridge; but in such a manner as not to interfere with the rights of the public to the use of the river. The public had the right to the free navigation of the river for such purposes as it had previously been used ; and they also, as well as the plaintiffs, had an interest in the erection of the bridge, that they might be accommodated in crossing the stream. The plaintiffs and defendants, then, had both of them rights that could be affected by the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- People v. President & Directors of the Manhattan Co.New York Supreme Court · 1832
- Crocker v. WhitneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Commonwealth v. Union Fire & Marine InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Slee v. BloomNew York Court of Chancery · 1821
- Inhabitants of Shutesbury v. Inhabitants of OxfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1819
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.