History
  • No items yet
midpage
Nowell v. Wentworth
58 N.H. 319
| N.H. | 1878
|
Check Treatment

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.

Case Details

Case Name: Nowell v. Wentworth
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Date Published: Jun 5, 1878
Citation: 58 N.H. 319
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.