Nowell v. Wentworth

58 N.H. 319
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided June 5, 1878·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Stanley, J.

The notice to quit was sufficient, provided the demand was sufficient. Gen. St., c. 231, s. 2. The demand was not sufficient, because it was for a greater sum than was due.

The common law on the subject of tenancies has been adopted in this state, except as it has been modified by statute. Currier v. Perley, 24 N. H. 219, 223; Hazeltine v. Colburn, 31 N. H. 466, 471; McQuesten v. Morgan, 34 N. H. 400, 404. Under it, the demand must be of the precise amount of rent due ; and this requirement has not been modified or changed by the statute. Jones v. Reed, 15 N. H. 68; McQuesten v. Morgan, supra; Coon v. Brickett, 2 N. H. 163; McMurphy v. Minot, 4 N. H. 251; Sperry v. Sperry, 8 N. H. 477, 481; Jackson v. Kipp, 3 Wend. 231; Connor v. Bradley, 1 How. 211, 217; Taylor Landl. and Ten., s. 297; 1 Washb. Real Prop. 321; Vin. Abr., Rent, 2; Com. Dig., Rent, D.

Judgment for the defendant.

Doe, C. J., and Smith, J., did not sit.

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

Nowell v. Wentworth, 58 N.H. 319 (N.H. 1878).

58 N.H. 319 (Nowell v. Wentworth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

BUATTI v. Prentice
27 A.3d 849 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 2011)
Cashman v. Dumaine
160 A. 484 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1932)