Wilder v. Wheeler
Wilder v. Wheeler.
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
*352 Smith, J.
The defendant’s agreement or deed to tbe Peterborough North Cotton Factory limited the right to take water from his aqueduct to that company. No words of inheritance are used. The grant is not expressed to be to the company, its “ successors and assigns,” or in equivalent words, but to the Peterborough North Cotton Factory. Nor is there anything in the language of the whole instrument that shows an intention to convey an assignable interest. This case differs in this respect from Cole v. Lake Com pany, 54 N. H. 242, where, although the word “heirs ” was omitted from the lease, it appeared from the language of the whole lease that a covenant for perpetual enjoyment was intended. As the right acquired by the company was not assignable, the plaintiff acquired from Noone, the company’s grantee, no easement in the defendant’s land. The defendant is entitled to Judgment on the report.
Stanley, 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.