Jones v. Mason
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Appeal, from the laying out of a highway over the plaintiff’s premises. The county commissioners found there was necessity for the proposed highway. Many witnesses testified before them, giving their opinions upon the question and their reasons therefor. There -are no houses on the new highway except one at the end, called the Newell place. The occupants of the Newell place have a way by prescription over the route of the proposed highway.
Read the full summary
Appeal, from the laying out of a highway over the plaintiff’s premises. The county commissioners found there was necessity for the proposed highway. Many witnesses testified before them, giving their opinions upon the question and their reasons therefor. There -are no houses on the new highway except one at the end, called the Newell place. The occupants of the Newell place have a way by prescription over the route of the proposed highway. The plaintiff moved to vacate the finding of the commissioners. The motion was denied, and the plaintiff excepted. Transferred from the September term,…
1Opinion of the CourtParsons, C. J.
The report of the commissioners having been returned into the court might be recommitted or rejected by the court (P. S., c. 68, s. 8), but it has always been held that “the court has no power to revise the doings of the commissioners for the purpose of ascertaining whether they have judged wisely and correctly . . . nor for any purpose but to see that their proceedings have been regular, and that fraud or surprise has not been used to vitiate their results.” Hampstead’s Petition, 19 N. H. 343, 347; Crosby v. Hanover, 36 N. H. 414, 418; Doughty v. Little, 61 N. H. 365, 368. There is no…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Doughty v. LittleSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1881
- Petition of the Milford & Manchester RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1896
- Webster's PetitionSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1881
3Cited by1 opinion
- Waisman v. ManchesterSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1949