Nowell v. Wentworth
This text of 58 N.H. 319 (Nowell v. Wentworth) 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.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
58 N.H. 319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nowell-v-wentworth-nh-1878.