Portsmouth Gas Light Co. v. Shanahan

19 A. 1002, 65 N.H. 233
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedDecember 5, 1889
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 19 A. 1002 (Portsmouth Gas Light Co. v. Shanahan) 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
Portsmouth Gas Light Co. v. Shanahan, 19 A. 1002, 65 N.H. 233 (N.H. 1889).

Opinion

Cabpentejj, J.

The city had authority to construct the sewer. G. L., c. 48, s. 8, c. 78, s. 6. If the plaintiffs have any interest or easement in the soil of the city streets, no part of it was taken for the sewer. They have now, the same unimpaired right or interest which they had before the sewer was constructed. No damages could have been awarded the plaintiffs for a talcing of their property under the law of eminent domain (G. L., c. 48, s. 8, c. 78, s. 13), if all that happened in the process of building the sewer had been foreseen. Kennett's Pet., 24 N. H. 139; Pet. of Mt. Washington Road Co., 35 N. H. 134; Eaton v. B. C. & M. R. R., 51 N. H. 504; Thompson v. Androscoggin Co., 54 N. H. 545. The right of the city to build the sewer was at least equal to that of the plaintiffs to maintain their gas pipes in the street. Assuming that their rights were equal, each was bound so to exercise his *242 right as not unnecessarily, unreasonably, or negligently to interfere with the other’s right, and would not be liable in damages so long as he did so. National Water-Works Co. v. City of Kansas, 28 Fed. Rep. 921. It is found that the use of explosives, and the uncovering, exposure, and undermining" of the plaintiffs’ pipes, by the defendant, were necessary; in other words, that the sewer could not otherwise be constructed. The defendant was the city’s servant or agent. In building the sewer, he could lawfully do whatever the city could do. He was authorized to do what was necessary to be done in the construction of the sewer. He did nothing more, and he exercised ordinary care to prevent injury to the plaintiffs. Fie was not in fault, and is not liable. Brown v. Collins, 53 N. H. 442; Lyons v. Child, 61 N. H. 72; Holmes v. Mather, L. R. 10 Exch. 261, 268, 269. A householder, whose dwelling was destroyed or injured, or who was personally wounded by rocks blasted from the sewer by the defendant, could not recover damages, unless the blasting, being in itself lawful, was negligently done — unless the defendant by ordinary care could have prevented the injury. Nashua Iron Co. v. W. & N. Railroad, 62 N. H. 159.

Judgment for the defendant.

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

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

Related

Mutual Telephone Co. v. Hawaiian Contracting Co.
31 Haw. 296 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1930)
Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Slezak
276 P. 904 (Washington Supreme Court, 1929)
Clark v. St. Louis & Suburban Railway Co.
137 S.W. 583 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 A. 1002, 65 N.H. 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/portsmouth-gas-light-co-v-shanahan-nh-1889.