Blankenberg v. Markarian

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Blankenberg v. Markarian

103 A. 976, 79 N.H. 27, 1918 N.H. LEXIS 8

DecidedJune 4, 1918

StatusPublished

This text of 103 A. 976 (Blankenberg v. Markarian) 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

Blankenberg v. Markarian, 103 A. 976, 79 N.H. 27, 1918 N.H. LEXIS 8 (N.H. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Walker, J.

April 2, 1917, the plaintiff served a notice on the defendant to quit the premises on the third day of May, 1917, which it is conceded was sufficient, unless the fact that upon the same piece of paper there was another notice, addressed to the defendant and signed by the plaintiff, of an increase of the rent from April 2, renders the first notice void. This is the only question raised by the exception to the ruling denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action. The result claimed by the defendant does not follow as a matter of law. The notice for an increase of the rent to begin at once, is not necessarily inconsistent with the notice to quit in thirty days; nor is it, unassented to by the tenant, a waiver of the first notice.

Exception overruled.

All concurred.,

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

Walker, J.

April 2, 1917, the plaintiff served a notice on the defendant to quit the premises on the third day of May, 1917, which it is conceded was sufficient, unless the fact that upon the same piece of paper there was another notice, addressed to the defendant and signed by the plaintiff, of an increase of the rent from April 2, renders the first notice void. This is the only question raised by the exception to the ruling denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action. The result claimed by the defendant does not follow as a matter of law. The notice for an increase of the rent to begin at once, is not necessarily inconsistent with the notice to quit in thirty days; nor is it, unassented to by the tenant, a waiver of the first notice.

Exception overruled.

All concurred.,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A. 976, 79 N.H. 27, 1918 N.H. LEXIS 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blankenberg-v-markarian-nh-1918.