History
  • No items yet
midpage
Wheeler v. Rowell
6 N.H. 215
Superior Court of New Hampshir...
1833
Check Treatment
By the court*

We are of opinion, that the jury were misdirected in the court below, in this case.

It is, without doubt, necessary, in trespass, qvare clau-sum fregit, to prove the abuttals of the close as stated. 5 N. H. Reports, 322; 2 Rolle’s Ab. 677; Yelverton, 114, Winkworth vs. Man: 1 Moore, 161, Taylor vs Hoomun, 3 Starkie’s Ev. 1435; 1 Chitty’s Pl. 363—364; Buller’s N. P. 89.

This was clone substantially in this case. For although the close was not abutted all along on the southerly side, by land of Vespasian Wheeler ; yet, still it was abutted southerly on his land, and this was enough to satisfy the description. Abuttals are not to be construed strictly. The description of the close as abutting on Wheeler’s land did not imply that it was abutting there all along on Wheeler’s close. 1 Taunton, 497.

Judgment reversed.

Parker, J. having been of Comise), did not sit.

Case Details

Case Name: Wheeler v. Rowell
Court Name: Superior Court of New Hampshire
Date Published: Jul 15, 1833
Citation: 6 N.H. 215
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.