Case ID: nh_64/html/0392-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Blodgett, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Taylor & a. v. Blake.
    The following words of description in a deed make the thread of the stream a boundary of the tract conveyed: “thence ... to a poplar tree on the bank of Newfound river, and hence up said river until it comes on the line to make a right angle with the easterly end of said corn-barn.”
    Case, for diverting the water of Newfound river in Bristol from the plaintiffs’ grist-mill. Facts found by the court. The plaintiffs’ water-privilege is furnished by a wing dam extending from near the westerly end of their mill diagonally, two thirds the distance across the river, where it unites with the main dam above, from the overflow of which the wing dam is supplied with water. The diversion complained of consists in drawing water from the main dam to propel a wheel of the defendant’s and discharging the same into the" river below, whereby the plaintiffs are deprived of its use.
    The plaintiffs derive their title under a deed from Moses Lewis to James Martin in 1804, wherein their premises are described as “ about 44 square rods of land, being a part of the lot No. 61 in the first division of lots in New Chester and Bridgewater, bounded as follows, viz.: Beginning four feet and six inches south of the south-westerly corner of my corn-barn and thence north 85° east six rods and seven links to a stake and stones; thence south 81° east four rods and fifteen links to a stake and stones; thence south 27° west five rods and twenty links to a poplar tree on the bank of Newfound river so called, and thence up said river until it comes on the line to make a right angle with the easterly end of said corn-barn, and from thence north 11° west, about two rods to the bound first mentioned.” Under this deed the plaintiffs and their grantors, during the whole period from 1804 to 1881, occupied and used the water right which they now claim has been infringed by the defendant, without interruption or adverse claim, except that in 1871 or 1872 the defendant moved his wheel to near the angle of the wing and main dams, and arranged the outlet so that the water from the wheel, by the use of a gate, would discharge either into the wing dam or into the river below. Usually the discharge was into the wing dam except in time of high water. In 1881 the defendant lowered the wheel to nearly the level of the bed of the river below, since when the water from it has been discharged into the river below the dam ; and that is the diversion for which this suit is brought. Several mesne conveyances and leases, showing the history of the respective titles of both parties since 1804, stated in the case, are omitted as immaterial. The finding was for the plaintiffs, and the defendant excepted.
    
      Fling & Chase, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Daniel Barnard, for the defendant.
   Blodgett, J.

The title of the plaintiffs, both by deed and by prescription, to the water diverted from them by the defendant, is quite too plain for discussion.

Exceptions overruled.

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