Claremont Ry. & Lighting Co. v. Putney
| Decision Date | 05 December 1905 |
| Citation | 73 N.H. 431,62 A. 727 |
| Parties | CLAREMONT RY. & LIGHTING CO. v. PUTNEY et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court; Wallace, Judge.
Petition for mandamus by the Claremont Railway & Lighting Company against Henry M. Putney and others, as railroad commissioners, to require them to assess damages occasioned by an alleged taking by plaintiffs of land, etc., belonging to Alexander Roberts. The petition was dismissed, and plaintiffs bring exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
Roberts owns a dam across Sugar river in Claremont, by which he operates a woolen mill. The dam flows back the water of the stream easterly for a distance of 300 feet or more. He also owns a tract of land situated on the south side of the river, the north line of which is the middle of the stream, extending easterly from the easterly limit of the back-flow of the dam about 203 feet. In the last 203 feet there is a natural fall in the river of about 15 feet, which creates a water power that has never been utilized. The plaintiffs own land on the north side of the river, extending the entire length of the unutilized water power, and a distance of about 100 feet further east. They also own a tract of land on the south side of the river, above the Roberts land and adjoining it at its easterly boundary. At the point where the plaintiffs own both sides of the river they have erected a dam, from the northerly end of which they have constructed a canal along the north side of the stream to a power house located on that side of the river at the lower or easterly end of the unutilized water power. By means of the dam and canal the plaintiffs divert substantially all the water of the stream, and do not return it to the channel of the river until it reaches the power house, thereby depriving Roberts of the privilege of having the water flow by his land. In August, 1902, the plaintiffs filed a petition with the Secretary of State for the purpose of condemning the unutilized water privilege and land of Roberts adjoining the same, in accordance with the requirements of chapter 158, Pub. St. 1891, and requested the board of railroad commissioners to assess the damages occasioned thereby. The commissioners, being in doubt as to their authority to assess damages for land and water power taken for the purpose of producing electric power for the operation of an electric railway and an electric lighting plant, declined to proceed, and this petition was thereupon brought.
Frank H. Brown and Mitchell & Foster, for plaintiffs. Hermon Holt and Streeter & Hollis, for defendants.
The plaintiffs are authorized by their charter "to acquire by contract all the property, assets, and franchises" of the Claremont Street Railway Company and the Claremont Electric Light Company; to "construct, maintain, and operate a railroad," using any power, except steam, for the "transportation of passengers, freight, express, and mail" over and upon such highways and lands within the limits of the town of Claremont...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State ex rel. Greffet v. Williams
...this city only "by purchase, lease or other lawful contract," or by grant. R. S. 1899, sec. 1187, clauses "seventh" and "fourth;" Railroad v. Putney, 62 A. 727. (7) Respondent as a street railway company cannot locate its tracks outside the streets named in the ordinance in the absence of a......
-
Gazzola v. Clements
...that the term "purchase" was intended to exclude condemnation proceedings. The plaintiffs rely on Claremont Railway & Lighting Co. v. Putney, 73 N.H. 431, 62 A. 727 (1905) and Opinion of the Justices, 107 N.H. 325, 221 A.2d 255 (1966). Their reliance is misplaced. In Claremont we held that ......
-
City of Birmingham v. Brown
... ... is not equivalent to the right to condemn. Claremont Ry ... & Lighting Co. v. Putney, 73 N.H. 431, 62 A. 727; ... Cavanagh v. Boston, 139 Mass. 426, ... ...
-
Roberts v. Claremont Ry. & Lighting Co.
...and case discharged. The case is the same as that reported in 73 N. H. 121, 59 Atl. 619. After the decision in Claremont Co. v. Putney, 73 N. H. 431, 62 Atl. 727, the plaintiff filed a motion in the superior court, asking that the defendants be enjoined from drawing water from Sugar river t......