Ela v. Pennock
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Writ or Entry. Plea, nul disseizin. The plaintiff introduced evidence to show that, twenty-seven years before the trial, he was in possession of the demanded premises; that four or five years after that, the defendant went into possession, erected buildings on the land, and had ever since occupied it.
Read the full summary
Writ or Entry. Plea, nul disseizin. The plaintiff introduced evidence to show that, twenty-seven years before the trial, he was in possession of the demanded premises; that four or five years after that, the defendant went into possession, erected buildings on the land, and had ever since occupied it. He also put in evidence a written agreement of the parties, dated May 10, 1836, by which the plaintiff agreed to convey the demanded premises to the defendant, on condition that he should pay him $180, as follows : $30 November 1, 1836 ; $50 November 1, 1837 ; $50 November 1, 1838, and $50…
1Opinion of the CourtPerley, C. J.
The defendant offered to show, on trial, that he entered into the demanded premises under a contract with the plaintiff for the purchase of the land ; that he performed the agreement on his part, by paying the agreed price, and was entitled to a conveyance. The plaintiff denied that the agreement had been performed by the defendant, and the court rejected the evidence offered by the defendant. Can the defendant in a writ of entry try the question whether he has performed an agreement with the plaintiff for the purchase of the demanded premises, and if he shows that he has, set up this…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hammond's Lessee v. InloesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1853
- Doe ex dem. Nickles v. HaskinsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1849
- Smith v. AllenIndiana Supreme Court · 1818
- Cheney v. CheneySupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
- Eells v. DaySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1821
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.