Case Name: Amoskeag Manufacturing Company v. Goodale & als.
Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire
Decision Date: 1882-06
Citations: 62 N.H. 66
Docket Number: 
Parties: Amoskeag Manufacturing Company v. Goodale & als.
Judges: Stanley, Smith, and Clark, JJ., did not sit: the others concurred.
Reporter: New Hampshire Reports
Volume: 62
Pages: 66–67

Head Matter:
Amoskeag Manufacturing Company v. Goodale & als.
The flowage act of 1868 (Gen. Laws, c. 241, ss. 15-19) is constitutional.
Petitions, for assessment of damages for flowing the defendants’ lands, under Gen. Laws, c. 141, ss. 15, 16, 17.
In each case the defendants filed a demurrer, assigning as cause for demurrer that the statute authorizing the proceeding is in violation of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States, which provides that no state shall deprive any per son of property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The defendants, also, each filed a protest that the taking of the property was not for a public use, and deprived him of his property without due process of law.
The demurrers and protests were overruled, and the defendants severally excepted.
On trial, the jury found in each case that the flowing, by reason of the raising of the plaintiffs’ dam, W'as for the public use and benefit, and necessary for the use of the mills for wdiich -the dam was designed, and in each case assessed nominal damages.
The defendants moved in arrest of judgment. The motion was denied, and the defendants excepted.
In each case the court ordered judgment on the verdict, and the defendants file this bill of exceptions, which is allowed.
W. Little, for the defendants.
L. Gross and J. Y. Mugridge, for the plaintiffs.

Opinion:
Blodgett, J.
The only question raised by the defendants is as to the constitutionality of the statute of 1868, commonly known as the flowage act. This question has been repeatedly decided adversely to the claim of the defendants, and is not now to be regarded as an open one in this jurisdiction. Company v. Fernald, 47 N. H. 444; Ash v. Cummings, 50 N. H. 591; Company v. Head, 56 N. H. 386; Company v. Worcester, 60 N. H. 522.
Exceptions overruled.
Stanley, Smith, and Clark, JJ., did not sit: the others concurred.