Chase v. Jefts
58 N.H. 43
N.H.
1876
Check Treatment

The amendment was necessary — Gould v. Kelley, 16 N.H. 551; Wright v. Cobleigh, 21 N.H. 339; Smith v. Woodman, 28 N.H. 520; Henniker v. C. V. R. R., 29 N.H. 146; Towle v. Meserve, 38 N.H. 9, 11; stone v. Aldrich,43 N.H. 52, 54; Hillsborough Co. v. Londonderry, 43 N.H. 451; Bath v. Freeport, 5 Mass. 325, 326 — and was properly allowed. Burnham v. Spooner,10 N.H. 165; Stevenson v. Mudgett, 10 N.H. 338; Perley v. Brown,12 N.H. 494; G. Bank v. White, 17 N.H. 389; Downer v. Shaw, 23 N.H. 125; Davis v. Hill, 41 N.H. 329; Hurd v. Chesley, 55 N.H. 21; Cahill v. Terrio,55 N.H. 571; Gilman v. Cate, 56 N.H. 160. The form of action was not changed. The court, in allowing the amendment, must have found that, as a matter of fact, the identity of the cause of action was preserved. Farr v. Wheeler, 20 N.H. 569; Baker v. Davis, 22 N.H. 27, 34, 35; Parker v. Gregg,23 N.H. 416, 426; Bassett v. S. M. Co., 28 N.H. 438, 452; Avery Y. Bowman,39 N.H. 393, 395; Wiggin v. Veasey, 43 N.H. 313, 814; Mann v. Brewer, 7 Allen 202. *Page 44

In 1855, it was decided that, under the statutes then in force, a prescriptive division of a partition fence would not prevent a division being made by fence-viewers. Glidden v. Towle, 31 N.H. 147, 168. The act of 1862 (Laws, 1862, c. 2614; Gen. St., c. 128, s. 3) allowed a division to be established by usage and acquiescence for twenty years. This act did not operate retrospectively. The twenty years use and acquiescence asserted under it by the defendant could not have begun before 1862. The prescription claimed by him cannot be established. The brief statement set forth no defence, and was properly rejected. Rich v. Flanders, 39 N.H. 304,311, 341, 3.66, 867; Colony v. Dublin, 32 N.H. 432, 434; B. M. R. R. v. Cilley, 44 N.H. 578; Andover v. Merrimack Co., 46 N.H. 180; Atherton v. McQuesten, 46 N.H. 205, 211.

Exceptions overruled.

STANLEY, J., did not sit.