Webster v. Blodgett
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, for the breach of a patrol contract to lease to the plaintiff land, and buildings to be erected thereon, for ten years. The plaintiff alleged the payment of part of the rent in advance. Subject to the defendants’ exception, the court ruled that the payment of-part of the stipulated rent is not necessarily such part performance as will-take the case out of the statute of frauds, but is evidence which the jury may consider on that question. Verdict for the plaintiff.
1Opinion of the CourtBingham, J.
A parol agreement to lease land, and buildings to be erected thereon, for ten years, is a contract to convey an interest in lands, and within the statute of frauds. G. L., c. 220, s. 14; c. 1, s. 20; c. 135, ss. 4, 12; Moore v. Ross, 11 N. H. 547, 552; Whitney v. Swett, 22 N. H. 10; Crosby v. Wadsworth, 6 East 602. A parol contract for the purchase of an interest in land is not taken put of the statute of frauds by part payment. Lane v. Shackford, 5 N. H. 133; Ayer v. Sawkes, 11 N. H. 148; Ham v. Goodrich, 37 N. H. 185; Emery v. Smith, 46 N. H. 151, 155; Luey v. Bundy, 9 N. H. 298; Folsom v.…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Foley v. FoleySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1939
- McCrillis v. American Heel Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1931