Citation Numbers: 63 N.H. 427
Judges: DOE, C. J.
Filed Date: 6/5/1885
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
No promise, express or implied, was in fact made by the defendant to pay for his use of the water. The water-right claimed by him is also claimed by the plaintiff in interest; and the suit is brought to settle the disputed aqueduct title. The fiction of a promise implied by law contrary to the fact may be invented and used, for the sake of the remedy, to enforce the performance of a legal duty. Sceva v. True,
Case discharged.
BLODGETT, J., did not sit: the others concurred.