Newcastle v. Haywood

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Newcastle v. Haywood

37 A. 1040, 67 N.H. 178

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedJune 5, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 A. 1040 (Newcastle v. Haywood) 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

Newcastle v. Haywood, 37 A. 1040, 67 N.H. 178 (N.H. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam. *

The facts found by the referee do not show that the plaintiff's or the public suffer irreparable damage by reason of the existence of the fence in the highway, or that there is such danger of mischief on that account as to bring the case within any rule of equity jurisdiction, before the establishment of the plaintiffs’ right in a suit at law. It not appearing that the remedy at law is inadequate, equitable relief must be denied. Bassett v. Company, 47 N. H. 426, 438; Dana v. Craddock, 66 N. H. 593. If the defendants had placed a boom across the mouth of the Piscataqua river, or had totally or dangerously obstructed constant travel through the main street of the town, there would have been occasion for a temporary injunction, and any procedure necessary for the correction of such a grievous infringement of public right and the ensuing irreparable injury. There is adequate remedy for the violation of legal rights. Boody v. Watson, 64 N. H. 162, 171. The only ground on which an injunction could be decreed in this ease would be the inadequacy of the remedy at law. That *180 ground failing, the bill must be dismissed. If Burlington v. Schwarzman, 52 Conn. 181, sustains the plaintiffs’ contention, it merely shows that.a'more extensive equity jurisdiction exists there than has been understood to obtain in this state.

Bill" dismissed.

Chase, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

*

See foot-note on page 80.

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

Per Curiam. *

The facts found by the referee do not show that the plaintiff's or the public suffer irreparable damage by reason of the existence of the fence in the highway, or that there is such danger of mischief on that account as to bring the case within any rule of equity jurisdiction, before the establishment of the plaintiffs’ right in a suit at law. It not appearing that the remedy at law is inadequate, equitable relief must be denied. Bassett v. Company, 47 N. H. 426, 438; Dana v. Craddock, 66 N. H. 593. If the defendants had placed a boom across the mouth of the Piscataqua river, or had totally or dangerously obstructed constant travel through the main street of the town, there would have been occasion for a temporary injunction, and any procedure necessary for the correction of such a grievous infringement of public right and the ensuing irreparable injury. There is adequate remedy for the violation of legal rights. Boody v. Watson, 64 N. H. 162, 171. The only ground on which an injunction could be decreed in this ease would be the inadequacy of the remedy at law. That *180 ground failing, the bill must be dismissed. If Burlington v. Schwarzman, 52 Conn. 181, sustains the plaintiffs’ contention, it merely shows that.a'more extensive equity jurisdiction exists there than has been understood to obtain in this state.

Bill" dismissed.

Chase, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

*

See foot-note on page 80.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A. 1040, 67 N.H. 178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newcastle-v-haywood-nh-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack