Smith v. Kennett
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Motion Motors, Inc. v. Berwick (N.H. 2004)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The defendants’ entry on the plaintiff’s land to remove their trees, was both unlawful, Peirce v. Finerty, 76 N. H. 38, and wilful; for they had been advised they had no right to enter for that purpose. It does not follow, however, that in so far as the trees the defendants owned are concerned, the plaintiff can recover the penalty prescribed in s. 1, for it provides in terms that the forfeiture is for the benefit of the person injured, that is, for the benefit of the owner of the trees, not the owner of the land.
Although s. 1 does not apply in so far as such trees are concerned, it does apply if the defendants cut, felled or damaged any trees, poles or underwood belonging to the plaintiff.
Case discharged.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.