Horne v. Hutchins

4 Citing cases

  1. Hutchins v. Berry

    66 A. 1046 (N.H. 1907)   Cited 3 times

    In a brief filed since the hearing, the plaintiff objects to this modification as an invasion of his right as the owner of the leather-board mill, heretofore called the box-factory privilege. Horne v. Hutchins, 72 N.H. 77, was a bill in equity to determine to what extent and in what manner water was actually used at the box factory, October 26, 1872, such use having been held to be the measure of the box-factory right. Horne v. Hutchins, 71 N.H. 128, 137. In the former case it was found that, as between the sawmill and the box factory, there was no preference; that the water-wheel in the sawmill could use thirty-eight cubic feet of water and the penstock of the box factory could deliver seventeen cubic feet of water per second when the water in the pond stood at the level of the wasteway.

  2. Brown v. Berry

    99 A. 1069 (N.H. 1916)

    PETITION, by the owner of the grist-mill to modify the receiver's instructions. The proceeding is a branch of the same litigation heretofore before the court and reported in 71 N.H. 117, 128; 72 N.H. 77, 211; 73 N.H. 310, 603, 611; 74 N.H. 225, 598; 75 N.H. 416. Hearing by the court. It was ordered that the receiver "deliver, under the orders heretofore made, thirty-eight cubic feet of water per second for ten hours of each working day to the grist-mill wheels." The orders in force provide that when the water in the reservoir is drawn down to the four foot point the receiver shall cease drawing water until a sufficient quantity accumulates in the reservoir to run all the mills at dam C for an economical period.

  3. Hutchins v. Berry

    75 A. 650 (N.H. 1910)   Cited 10 times

    in gristmill, the measure of the right is not the capacity of the mill at the date of the conveyance, but the quantity of water reasonably required for the conduct of the gristmill business in the vicinity; and this quantity the owner of the gristmill right may use for any purpose he sees fit. An account of the tolls taken at a gristmill, kept by a miller since deceased and purporting to be a record of all his receipts, is admissible to prove the volume of business done at the mill during the period covered by it; and the facts that the system adopted was a crude one and that the author of the record was under no obligation to keep an accurate account, while they may detract from the weight of the evidence, do not establish its incompetency. BILL IN EQUITY. Facts found, and case transferred without final order from the June term, 1908, of the superior court, by Chamberlin, J. The proceeding is a branch of the same litigation heretofore before the court and reported 71 N.H. 117, 128; 72 N.H. 77, 211; 73 N.H. 310, 603, 611; and 74 N.H. 225, 598. The questions now presented relate to the extent of the gristmill right and the orders under which the receiver has been operating.

  4. Berry v. Hutchins

    61 A. 550 (N.H. 1905)   Cited 6 times

    The plaintiffs own the Horne water privilege and the sawmill, and the defendant Hutchins owns the gristmill, the leather-board mill, and the water privilege at dam B, mentioned in the above named cases. All deeds and papers which were parts of those cases, and of the cases reported in 71 N.H. 128 and 72 N.H. 77, are made parts of this case. Leslie P. Snow and Sewall W. Abbott, for the plaintiffs.