Underwood v. Bailey
Opinion
This case is determined by the report of the commissioners that the highway “ is for the sole accommodation and *481 benefit of the defendant, and not for the accommodation of the public.” It is settled beyond all controversy that “ individual property can be compulsorily appropriated by the public only for public use.” Dillon Mun. Corp., s. 460; Cooley Const. Lim. 530. “ The appellant cannot be deprived of his property except for a public purpose.” Cushing, C. J., in Underwood v. Bailey, 56 N. H. 187, 190.
Petition dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
59 N.H. 480 (Underwood v. Bailey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.