Philbrook v. Berlin-Shelburne Power Co.
74 A. 873, 75 N.H. 599, 1909 N.H. LEXIS 85
Opinion
If the availability of the plaintiffs’ farm for a summer boarding-house made it more valuable than it otherwise would have been, it was proper for the jury to consider that fact; for the measure of the plaintiffs’ damages is the difference in the value of their farm before and after their meadow-land was flowed.
Befendants’ exception overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Philbrook v. Berlin-Shelburne Power Co., 74 A. 873, 75 N.H. 599, 1909 N.H. LEXIS 85 (N.H. 1909).
74 A. 873 (Philbrook v. Berlin-Shelburne Power Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Seferi v. Ives
236 A.2d 83 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1967)
South Carolina State Highway Department v. Bolt
131 S.E.2d 264 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1963)
City of Trenton v. Lenzner
109 A.2d 409 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1954)
Housing Authority v. Lustig
90 A.2d 169 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1952)
Bean v. Central Maine Power Co.
173 A. 498 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1934)