Public Service Co. v. Voudomas
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtBranch, J.
Both the statutory action and the writ of entry are essentially possessory in character (P. L., c. 357, ss. 13, 14; Cheever v. Roberts, 82 N. H. 289, 292), and in this case the right of possession alone is involved. There is no dispute in regard to the legal title to the stores in question and all technical objections to the propriety of the forms of action employed by the plaintiff have been waived by the defendant. Since the defendant now occupies the premises, the plaintiff can succeed only by showing that it has a better right to immediate possession. Cheever v. Roberts, supra, and cases…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Holbrook v. YoungMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- McLeran v. BentonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Meier v. ThiemannMissouri Court of Appeals · 1884
- King v. LawsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
- Cunningham v. HoltonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1867
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Cooperman v. MacNeilSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1983
- Evans v. J Four Realty, LLCSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2013
- Anderson v. RiesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1946