Cole v. Fred B. Pierce Co.
Daniel R. Cole & A. v. Fred B. Pierce Company
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Young, J.
It is true, as the plaintiffs contend, that their deed gives them the right to .draw water from the stream by means of the dam, but it does not follow that the defendant is bound to keep the dam in repair for their benefit, for the deed is silent as to who shall maintain the dam, and there is no rule of law written or unwritten which imposes the duty oh the defendant of repairing the dam for the benefit of the plaintiffs. In other words, notwithstanding the plaintiffs’ deed gives them the right to use the dam to draw water from the stream for the use of their mill, neither the deed nor the law imposes the duty of keeping the dam in repair on either of the parties for the benefit of the other.
Horne v. Hutchins, 71 N. H. 117, 121, 124;
Bartlett v. Peaslee, 20 N. H. 547, 549; 9 R. C. L. 794, 795.
Bill dismissed.
Plummer, J., was absent: the others concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.