Tuftonborough v. Fox

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Tuftonborough v. Fox

58 N.H. 416

DecidedAugust 5, 1878

StatusPublished

This text of 58 N.H. 416 (Tuftonborough v. Fox) 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

Tuftonborough v. Fox, 58 N.H. 416 (N.H. 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

Doe, C. J.

As the ability of the town to build and maintain the highway was a material part of the question of laying out (Dudley v. Cilley, 5 N. H. 558, 560, 561; Winship v. Enfield, 42 N. H. 197, 204, 205), a diminution of that ability is a change of circumstances that may be a sufficient reason for discontinuance. It is possible that after a road is laid out, and before it is built, the resources of the town may be so reduced that the expense of the road would be unreasonably burdensome.

Case discharged.

Stanley, J., did not sit.

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

Doe, C. J.

As the ability of the town to build and maintain the highway was a material part of the question of laying out (Dudley v. Cilley, 5 N. H. 558, 560, 561; Winship v. Enfield, 42 N. H. 197, 204, 205), a diminution of that ability is a change of circumstances that may be a sufficient reason for discontinuance. It is possible that after a road is laid out, and before it is built, the resources of the town may be so reduced that the expense of the road would be unreasonably burdensome.

Case discharged.

Stanley, J., did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 N.H. 416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tuftonborough-v-fox-nh-1878.