TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wilkins v. Manchester

Wilkins v. Manchester.

Wilkins v. Manchester, 67 A. 560 (N.H. 1907)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 4, 1907
Judges
Young
Citations
67 A. 56074 N.H. 2751907 N.H. LEXIS 40
Headnotes
Where house-lots have been sold iu accordance with a recorded plan which shows an intersecting street, a subsequent grantee of the street location is entitled to only nominal damages upon an appropriation of his land for highway purposes.
Summary
Appeal, from the assessment of damages for land taken for a highway. Transferred from the September term, 1906, of the superior court by Pike, J., upon an agreed statement of facts. Before 1895, the owner of a tract of land in Manchester plotted it and recorded the plan, which showed the lots into which it had been divided and a proposed street called Brooklyn avenue. Prior to November 11, 1895, he sold all the lots but one, bounding them by that avenue, and on that day sold the last lot together with the location of the avenue to the plaintiff’s ancestor in title. After the plaintiff bought the property, the mayor and aldermen laid out Brooklyn avenue as a highway and awarded him one cent as damages. He appealed, and the commissioners gave him the same damages. When this report was filed, he asked to have his damages assessed by a jury. “ Upon the foregoing facts, if the plaintiff cannot maintain his action his appeal is to bo dismissed; otherwise to stand in order for trial.”

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

Young, J.

If the question intended to be transferred is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial, the answer is yes, for that right is given him by statute. P. S., c.

68, s.

10; Laws 1897, c.

13. But if the question is the measure of his damages, *276 the answer is that he can recover no more than the commissioners-awarded him, if the agreed case contains all the evidence bearing: on that question, for this ease cannot be distinguished from Walker v. Manchester, 58 N. H. 438.

Case discharged.

All concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1925: 11999: 119252026peak 1925 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hill v. Town of Conway193 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 1999)
  2. City of Lewiston v. Brinton239 P. 738 (Idaho 1925)

Most recent

  1. Hill v. Town of Conway193 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 1999)
  2. City of Lewiston v. Brinton239 P. 738 (Idaho 1925)

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.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Walker v. City of Manchester, 58 N.H. 438 (1878) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list