History
  • No items yet
midpage
Lear v. Durgin
15 A. 127
N.H.
1888
Check Treatment

The demanded premises were reserved by the grantor in the deed upon which the plaintiff relies to make her title, and she offered parol evidence to show that the reservation was not intended, which was excluded. Parol evidence to vary the plain terms of the deed and make it include what is by it expressly excluded is inadmissible. Nutting v. Herbert, 35 N.H. 120. The defendant offered no evidence; but the plaintiff, to recover, must rely on the strength of her own title, and not upon the weakness of the defendant's. Atherton v. Johnson, 2 N.H. 35; Goulding v. Clark,34 N.H. 155. The plaintiff having failed to prove a title to the demanded premises, a verdict for the defendant was properly ordered.

Exceptions overruled.

BLODGETT, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

Case Details

Case Name: Lear v. Durgin
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Date Published: Jun 5, 1888
Citation: 15 A. 127
Court Abbreviation: N.H.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.