Nowell v. Wentworth
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Process, under the statute of landlord and tenant. Facts found by a referee. The defendant occupied a store of the plaintiff’s as a tenant at will. He paid, as rent, sixteen dollars per month, from Oct. 1, 1875, to Feb. 1, 1876. April 1, 1876, the plaintiff demanded, as rent, one dollar per day for the months of February and March preceding, which the defendant refused to pay ; and on that day the plaintiff gave the defendant notice to quit, April 12, 1876.
1Opinion of the CourtStanley, 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;…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Connor v. BradleySupreme Court of the United States · 1843
3Cited by2 opinions
- BUATTI v. PrenticeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2011
- Cashman v. DumaineSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1932