Chase v. Jefts

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Chase v. Jefts

58 N.H. 43

DecidedDecember 5, 1876

StatusPublished

This text of 58 N.H. 43 (Chase v. Jefts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chase v. Jefts, 58 N.H. 43 (N.H. 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

Sawyer, J.

The amendment was necessary — Gould v. Kelley, 16 N. H. 551; Wright v. Cobleigh, 21 N. H. 339; Smith v. Woodman, 28 N. H. 520; Henniker v. C. V. R. R., 29 N. H. 146; Towle v. Meserve, 38 N. H. 9, 11; Stone v. Aldrich, 43 N. H. 52, 54; Hillsborough Co. v. Londonderry, 43 N. H. 451; Bath v. Freeport, 5 Mass. 325, 326 — and was properly allowed. Burnham v. Spooner, 10 N. H. 165; Stevenson v. Mudgett, 10 N. H. 338; Perley v. Brown, 12 N. H. 494; G. Bank v. White, 17 N. H. 389; Downer v. Shaw, 23 N. H. 125; Davis v. Hill, 41 N. H. 329; Hurd v. Chesley, 56 N. H. 21; Cahill v. Terrio, 55 N. H. 571; Gilman v. Cate, 56 N. H. 160. The form of action was not changed. The court, in allowing the amendment, must have found that, as a matter of fact, the identity of the cause of action was preserved. Farr v. Wheeler, 20 N. H. 569; Baker v. Davis, 22 N. H. 27, 34, 35; Parker v. Gregg, 23 N. H. 416, 426; Bassett v. S. M. Co., 28 N. H. 438, 452; Avery v. Bowman, 39 N. H. 393, 395; Wiggin v. Veasey, 43 N. H. 313, 314; Mann v. Brewer, 7 Allen 202.

*44 In 1855, it was decided that, under the statutes then in force, a prescriptive division of a partition fence would not prevent a division being made by fence-viewers. Glidden v. Towle, 31 N. H. 147, 168. The act of 1862 (Laws, 1862, c. 2614; Gen. St., c. 128, s. 3) allowed a division to be established by usage and acquiescence for twenty years. This act did not operate retrospectively. The twenty years use and acquiescence asserted under it by the defendant could not have begun before 1862. The prescription claimed by him cannot be established. The brief statement set forth no defence, and was properly rejected. Rich v. Flanders, 39 N. H. 304, 311, 341, 366, 367; Colony v. Dublin, 32 N. H. 432, 434; B. & M. R. R. v. Cilley, 44 N. H. 578; Andover v. Merrimack Co., 46 N. H. 180; Atherton v. McQuesten, 46 N. H. 205, 211.

Exceptions overruled.

Stanley, J., did not sit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Sawyer, J.

The amendment was necessary — Gould v. Kelley, 16 N. H. 551; Wright v. Cobleigh, 21 N. H. 339; Smith v. Woodman, 28 N. H. 520; Henniker v. C. V. R. R., 29 N. H. 146; Towle v. Meserve, 38 N. H. 9, 11; Stone v. Aldrich, 43 N. H. 52, 54; Hillsborough Co. v. Londonderry, 43 N. H. 451; Bath v. Freeport, 5 Mass. 325, 326 — and was properly allowed. Burnham v. Spooner, 10 N. H. 165; Stevenson v. Mudgett, 10 N. H. 338; Perley v. Brown, 12 N. H. 494; G. Bank v. White, 17 N. H. 389; Downer v. Shaw, 23 N. H. 125; Davis v. Hill, 41 N. H. 329; Hurd v. Chesley, 56 N. H. 21; Cahill v. Terrio, 55 N. H. 571; Gilman v. Cate, 56 N. H. 160. The form of action was not changed. The court, in allowing the amendment, must have found that, as a matter of fact, the identity of the cause of action was preserved. Farr v. Wheeler, 20 N. H. 569; Baker v. Davis, 22 N. H. 27, 34, 35; Parker v. Gregg, 23 N. H. 416, 426; Bassett v. S. M. Co., 28 N. H. 438, 452; Avery v. Bowman, 39 N. H. 393, 395; Wiggin v. Veasey, 43 N. H. 313, 314; Mann v. Brewer, 7 Allen 202.

*44 In 1855, it was decided that, under the statutes then in force, a prescriptive division of a partition fence would not prevent a division being made by fence-viewers. Glidden v. Towle, 31 N. H. 147, 168. The act of 1862 (Laws, 1862, c. 2614; Gen. St., c. 128, s. 3) allowed a division to be established by usage and acquiescence for twenty years. This act did not operate retrospectively. The twenty years use and acquiescence asserted under it by the defendant could not have begun before 1862. The prescription claimed by him cannot be established. The brief statement set forth no defence, and was properly rejected. Rich v. Flanders, 39 N. H. 304, 311, 341, 366, 367; Colony v. Dublin, 32 N. H. 432, 434; B. & M. R. R. v. Cilley, 44 N. H. 578; Andover v. Merrimack Co., 46 N. H. 180; Atherton v. McQuesten, 46 N. H. 205, 211.

Exceptions overruled.

Stanley, J., did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 N.H. 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chase-v-jefts-nh-1876.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack