Bean v. Fitzpatrick

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Bean v. Fitzpatrick

38 A. 722, 67 N.H. 225

DecidedJune 5, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A. 722 (Bean v. Fitzpatrick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bean v. Fitzpatrick, 38 A. 722, 67 N.H. 225 (N.H. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam *

1 The plaintiffs contend that they were tenants of the defendant, and that they could not be ejected or deprived of the occupancy of the printing-office, because the defendant had not given them notice to quit.

Whether they were tenants entitled to notice we need not inquire, as they were not evicted or deprived of the occupancy. The defendant merely refused to perform the executory contract on his part, and he was justified in his refusal by the plaintiffs’ violation of the contract in regard to payment. The defendant was to furnish fuel for the boiler, and a hand to run the boiler and press. This he properly refused to do, and the contract did not *226 provide that the plaintiffs might do it. Turning down the gas was a reasonable mode of preventing the plaintiffs’ running the boiler and press, which they had no right to run.

Judgment for the defendant.

Smith, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam *

1 The plaintiffs contend that they were tenants of the defendant, and that they could not be ejected or deprived of the occupancy of the printing-office, because the defendant had not given them notice to quit.

Whether they were tenants entitled to notice we need not inquire, as they were not evicted or deprived of the occupancy. The defendant merely refused to perform the executory contract on his part, and he was justified in his refusal by the plaintiffs’ violation of the contract in regard to payment. The defendant was to furnish fuel for the boiler, and a hand to run the boiler and press. This he properly refused to do, and the contract did not *226 provide that the plaintiffs might do it. Turning down the gas was a reasonable mode of preventing the plaintiffs’ running the boiler and press, which they had no right to run.

Judgment for the defendant.

Smith, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A. 722, 67 N.H. 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bean-v-fitzpatrick-nh-1892.