Spiller v. Cass
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, for use and occupation of land. Facts found by a referee. The plaintiff verbally made a bargain with the defendant to sell him his farm, in the spring of 1875, for $800 and the payment of the taxes for that year. Two hundred dollars was to be paid by the next July, when a deed was to be given.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for use and occupation of land. Facts found by a referee. The plaintiff verbally made a bargain with the defendant to sell him his farm, in the spring of 1875, for $800 and the payment of the taxes for that year. Two hundred dollars was to be paid by the next July, when a deed was to be given. The defendant took possession of the farm but did not make the payment as agreed, and the following March the plaintiff sold it for a larger price, and the defendant moved from the premises. While in possession the defendant paid the taxes and made permanent improvements on the land, such as…
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
The contract for conveyance was verbal and within the statute of frauds, and no action for its breach could be maintained. The defendant having occupied the land and failed to fulfil the agreement, the plaintiff could rescind the contract under which the defendant took possession, and maintain assumpsit for use and occupation. Clough v. Hosford, 6 N. H. 231; Alton v. Pickering, 9 N. H. 498. But the plaintiff could not rescind the contract without restoring any benefits he had received under it. Ayer v. Hawkes, 11 N. H. 148, 155. Not having repaid the taxes and the cost of the improvements,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Mead v. WelchSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1892