State Ex Rel. Blodgett v. Batcheller

19 A. 1090, 66 N.H. 145
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided December 5, 1889·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Carpenter, J.

The petition is defective. It is not alleged that the defendants maintain the nuisance, — that they use the building for the illegal sale, or keeping for sale, of spirituous liquors. The building may be occupied by the defendants as a drug store, savings-bank, and post-office, and by other persons for other purposes. It is consistent with the allegations of the petition that the liquors are kept for sale and sold in the building by other occupants and not by the defendants. It is not the building, but the illegal use of it, that is the nuisance. When such use of it ceases, the nuisance is abated. Brown v. Perkins, 12 Gray 89, 102. The process of the court goes against the persons by whose unlawful acts the nuisance is created. The petition must show with reasonable certainty who those persons are, and they must be made parties to the proceeding.

This is a civil action (Rancour's Petition, post, p. 172), and the petition may be amended.

Demurrer sustained.

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

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

State Ex Rel. Blodgett v. Batcheller, 19 A. 1090, 66 N.H. 145 (N.H. 1889).

19 A. 1090 (State Ex Rel. Blodgett v. Batcheller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Claremont School District v. Governor
703 A.2d 1353 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1997)
People v. Detroit United Railway
173 N.W. 396 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1919)
State v. Spirituous Liquors
73 A. 169 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1909)
State Ex Rel. Hyde v. Lynch
55 A. 553 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1903)
State Ex Rel. Hubbard v. Piper
47 A. 703 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1900)
State Ex Rel. Thorndike v. Collins
36 A. 550 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1894)