State v. Vale Mills
State v. Vale Mills.
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
Stanley, J.
Tbe first three exceptions stand on the same ground. The evidence objected to was taken from ancient records, and was competent to be considered by the jury on the question of the laying out of Main street.
Prichard v. Atkinson, 8 N. H. 835, 338;
State v. Alstead, 18 N. H. 59 ;
Willey v. Portsmouth, 85 N. H. 303, 309, 310;
Hayward v. Bath, 38 N. H. 179, 187;
Thompson v. Major.
58 N. H. 242, 244;
Plummer v. Ossipee, 59 N. H. 56; 1 Greenl. Evid., ss.
139, 483, 493, 496, 497, 501.
The location of the west line of the street, in dispute, was a matter of public and general interest, and the evidence of reputation, to which objection was made, ivas competent. 1 Greenl. Evid., ss.
128-131.
The portion of the record of the laying out of Salmon street read was competent, as a declaration of a former owner on the question of boundary. The petition described the point of beginning of Salmon steet. It was signed by Gillis, under whom the defendants claim, and was in legal effect his declaration as to the location of the east side of the street in dispute.
Smith v. Powers, 15 N. H. 546;
Smith v. Knight, 20 N. H. 9;
Hurlburt v. Wheeler, 40 N. H. 73;
Prescott v. Hayes, 43 N. H. 596.
The defendants make no argument and cite no authority in support of their exceptions.
Judgment on the verdict.
Clank, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.