Nowell v. Wentworth

58 N.H. 319
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedJune 5, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

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.

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

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 N.H. 319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nowell-v-wentworth-nh-1878.