Carpenter v. Tinglof
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
About the time of this agreement Tinglof became interested with Hultman in the premises, and by an agreement between themselves Tinglof was to finance the purchase and become interested in the premises as owner. He at once moved into the buildings and has occupied them ever since.
Read the full summary
About the time of this agreement Tinglof became interested with Hultman in the premises, and by an agreement between themselves Tinglof was to finance the purchase and become interested in the premises as owner. He at once moved into the buildings and has occupied them ever since. When Hultman made his first payment of $50, he took a receipt from the plaintiff, as follows: “Chichester, N. H., October 1, 1906. Received of John Hultman fifty dollars in part payment of Holmes place at Webster’s Mills.” The court ruled that this receipt did not constitute a memorandum sufficiently definite to…
1Opinion of the CourtBingham, J.
The memorandum of October 1, 1906, does not answer the requirements of the statute of frauds. It fails to state the consideration for the purchase. Such a statement is necessary (Phelps v. Stillings, 60 N. H. 505; Slockwell v. Williams, 68 N. H. 75; Chellis v. Grimes, 72 N. H. 337), except when the consideration has been paid and the writing contains an acknowledgment that payment has been made in full. Andersen v. Young, 74 N. H. 428, 431, 432. Being deficient in the particular mentioned, it is unnecessary to consider whether the writing is also faulty as to the description of the property.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- White v. PooleSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1906
- Weed v. WoodsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1902
- Abbott v. BaldwinSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1881
- Chellis v. GrimesSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1903
- Phelps v. StillingsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1881
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Briand v. WildSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1970