Wilder v. Wheeler

60 N.H. 351
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedDecember 5, 1880
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 60 N.H. 351 (Wilder v. Wheeler) 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
Wilder v. Wheeler, 60 N.H. 351 (N.H. 1880).

Opinion

*352 Smith, J.

The defendant’s agreement or deed to tbe Peterborough North Cotton Factory limited the right to take water from his aqueduct to that company. No words of inheritance are used. The grant is not expressed to be to the company, its “ successors and assigns,” or in equivalent words, but to the Peterborough North Cotton Factory. Nor is there anything in the language of the whole instrument that shows an intention to convey an assignable interest. This case differs in this respect from Cole v. Lake Com pany, 54 N. H. 242, where, although the word “heirs ” was omitted from the lease, it appeared from the language of the whole lease that a covenant for perpetual enjoyment was intended. As the right acquired by the company was not assignable, the plaintiff acquired from Noone, the company’s grantee, no easement in the defendant’s land. The defendant is entitled to

Judgment on the report.

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

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

Related

Bailey v. K.Y.B.C. Land Corp.
39 S.W.3d 29 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 N.H. 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilder-v-wheeler-nh-1880.