Case ID: nh_73/html/0258-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Young, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hillsborough, )
    May 2, 1905. (
    Hamlin v. Blankenberg.
    The owner of land may subject it to any use which is reasonable ; and the test to determine the reasonableness of a given use is to inquire whether it is such as the ordinary man would make of the premises.
    Case, for damages to the plaintiff’s land. Trial by jury and verdict for the defendant. Transferred from the September term, 1904, of the superior court by Chamberlin, J.
    The plaintiff’s evidence tended to prove that rain falling on the defendant’s premises is collected by the roof of his block, flows therefrom over and upon the plaintiff’s land, and undermines the foundation of the latter’s building. The plaintiff excepted to the court’s refusal to instruct the jury, in substance, that ordinary care was not the measure of the defendant’s duty in relation to the maintenance of his premises.
    
      Gteorge W. Clyde and Henry B. Atherton, for the plaintiff.
    
      Doyle $ Dwcier, for the defendant.
   Young, J.

The owner of land may put it to any use which is reasonable, considering his interest and that of the other persons affected by it. Ladd v. Brick Co., 68 N. H. 185, 186. The test to determine whether a particular use is reasonable is to inquire whether or not it is such a use as the ordinary man would make of his premises. Horan v. Byrnes, 72 N. H. 93, 97, 100. The foundation on which the rule rests has been recently re-examined (Franklin v. Durgee, 71 N. H. 186) and the rule reaffirmed, so the further consideration of the question at this time can serve no useful purpose.

.Exception overruled.

All concurred.