Haynes v. Powers

Superior Court of New Hampshire

Haynes v. Powers

22 N.H. 590

DecidedJuly 15, 1851

StatusPublished

This text of 22 N.H. 590 (Haynes v. Powers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior 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

Haynes v. Powers, 22 N.H. 590 (N.H. Super. Ct. 1851).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

The demand was sufficient. It called for dower, of the defendant, of course, of land, of which'he was tenant; of [592]*592part of lot No. 10 ; the right of J. Fellows ; and being land which the husband, J. Haynes, once owned. No evidence was offered, that the lot No. 10, in which the demanded premises were situate, was the right of J. Fellows. Nothing was shown in regard to that; that circumstance in the description is therefore to be disregarded. As it appeared, that there were several lots numbered 10, in the town, the description of the premises, in which dower was demanded, as No. 10 alone, would be bad for uncertainty. But when it is said in the written demand of dower made upon this tenant, “ part of lot No. 10, once owned by J. Haynes,” and there is no evidence that either J. Haynes, or the defendant, ever owned any part of any other lot No. 10, there is no pretence of uncertainty, nor chance of mistake. ..

Judgment on the verdict*

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

Bell, J.

The demand was sufficient. It called for dower, of the defendant, of course, of land, of which'he was tenant; of [592]*592part of lot No. 10 ; the right of J. Fellows ; and being land which the husband, J. Haynes, once owned. No evidence was offered, that the lot No. 10, in which the demanded premises were situate, was the right of J. Fellows. Nothing was shown in regard to that; that circumstance in the description is therefore to be disregarded. As it appeared, that there were several lots numbered 10, in the town, the description of the premises, in which dower was demanded, as No. 10 alone, would be bad for uncertainty. But when it is said in the written demand of dower made upon this tenant, “ part of lot No. 10, once owned by J. Haynes,” and there is no evidence that either J. Haynes, or the defendant, ever owned any part of any other lot No. 10, there is no pretence of uncertainty, nor chance of mistake. ..

Judgment on the verdict*

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 N.H. 590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haynes-v-powers-nhsuperct-1851.