Bill in Equity, praying that the line between land of tbe plaintiff and defendant be established, and that the defendant be ordered to remove two bouses wbicb are situated partly upon the. plaintiff’s land. Facts found by a referee. Tbe defendant bas two bouses which extend over tbe line, — tbe northerly one at its north-west corner seven and forty-five hundredths feet; tbe southerly one at its south-west corner four and ninety-five hundredths feet.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1888-06-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 1979
15 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1
The plaintiff can take nothing by her exception. The inconsequential injury reported by the referee may apparently be fully compensated, and the land itself recovered in proceedings at law; but if not, the manifest object of this proceeding being to compel the defendant to pay an exorbitant price for tbe narrow
*573
strip of land upon which, through mutual mistake, her two houses are partly situate, and which is comparatively valueless except for purposes of litigation, or subject her to great inconvenience and expense in removing the buildings, equity will not aid in this attempted act of oppression, and will not take jurisdiction to give the plaintiff redress other than that afforded her by the alternative decree made at the trial term. See
Wason v.
Sanborn, 45 N. H. 169;
Clark
v. Society, 46 N. H. 272, 275, 276 ;
Bassett
v.
Company,
47 N. H. 426, 439, 441, 443.
