Keating v. Town of Gilsum
| Decision Date | 04 January 1956 |
| Citation | 100 N.H. 84,119 A.2d 344 |
| Parties | James KEATING et al. v. TOWN OF GILSUM. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Faulkner, Plaut & Hanna, George R. Hanna, Keene, for plaintiffs.
Harry C. Lichman, Keene, for defendant.
It is agreed that in 1953, Mine Road, a Class II highway in the town of Gilsum, was repaired by the State. RSA 231:3. As a result the grade of Banks Road, a Class V highway on which plaintiffs' premises are located, was lower than the approach to Mine Road which it adjoins. In order to improve the approach Banks Road was elevated about six inches opposite plaintiffs' garage.
All of this work was performed at the same time by an independent contractor under the supervision of a resident engineer employed by the State Department of Public Works & Highways. The defendant town contributed over $5,000 to this project which consisted of repairs to Mine Road and also to Banks Road as part of the approach to the former. The Banks Road repairs were done at the request of and with the approval of the selectmen of the defendant.
There was evidence that the elevation in grade made on Banks Road above the level of plaintiffs' driveway resulted in drainage from the road going into their driveway. It was also testified that as a consequence the amount of water going into their cellar was increased and that ice formed in the driveway making it more difficult to get out of the garage than was the case previously. The change in pitch from the driveway to the road caused by the raising of the grade of the road also made it more difficult to back out a car or bus from the garage. There was evidence that the change in grade of Banks Road would seriously affect the drainage problem in front of the garage unless the drainage on the opposite side of the road was properly taken care of. The cost of raising the garage to correct the situation was estimated as between six and eight hundred dollars. It could therefore be found on the evidence that the raising of the grade of Banks Road in repairing it occasioned damage to the adjoining 'estate', RSA 245:20, of the plaintiffs.
RSA 245:20, 245:21 provides that if in repairing a highway by the authority of the town the grade is raised whereby damage is occasioned to an adjoining estate and the owner is aggrieved by the neglect of the selectmen to award damages he may petition the Superior Court for their assessment. This law originated as Laws 1848, c. 725, § 1. Instead of the words 'by the authority of the town' it read as follows 'where the selectmen, or any surveyor of highways approved by them, or by the town, or any person acting under them shall make or cause to be made any alteration in any street or highway * * *.' It acquired its present wording in the revision of 1867. However no change other than a verbal one was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Conn v. Young
...We are convinced that New Hampshire would follow its usual rule of applying legislation only prospectively. Keating v. Town of Gilsum, 1956, 100 N.H. 84, 119 A.2d 344. Indeed, New Hampshire appears to carry this rule even further than do most jurisdictions, for it is applied at least to som......
-
Look v. Hughes Tool Company
...follow the general rule of construction that "legislation is presumed to be prospective and not retrospective." Keating v. Gilsum, 100 N.H. 84, 87, 119 A.2d 344, 346 (1956). However, Town of Gilford v. State Tax Commission, 108 N.H. 167, 229 A.2d 691 (1967), stands for the proposition gener......
-
Cumming v. United Air Lines, Inc.
...authorities to the effect that such change in limitation cannot be retrospective (Conn v. Young, 2 Cir., 267 F.2d 725; Keating v. Town of Gilsum, 100 N.H. 84, 119 A.2d 344; Murphy v. Boston & Maine R.R., 77 N.H. 573, 94 A. 967). Although these decisions are in accordance with the general ru......
-
Hayes v. LeBlanc
...the prospective operation of provisions added to an existing law by an amendment affecting contract rights. See Keating v. Gilsum, 100 N.H. 84, 87, 119 A.2d 344, 346 (1956). However, this presumption is not controlling where the language of the amendment or surrounding circumstances express......