Williams v. Noiseux
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
This was a writ of entry, in common form, and was tried by the court as upon the general issue. The plaintiff proved title in himself to the demanded premises, by a warrantee deed of the same to himself, dated April 9, 1856. The defendant then introduced a written contract, dated October 1, 1858, between said Williams and himself, and signed and sealed by both parties, in which said Williams agreed to convey the premises in question to John Bacon, of Portland, his successors…
Read the full summary
This was a writ of entry, in common form, and was tried by the court as upon the general issue. The plaintiff proved title in himself to the demanded premises, by a warrantee deed of the same to himself, dated April 9, 1856. The defendant then introduced a written contract, dated October 1, 1858, between said Williams and himself, and signed and sealed by both parties, in which said Williams agreed to convey the premises in question to John Bacon, of Portland, his successors and assigns in fee, for the sum of $1,500, and interest annually, payable as mentioned below. Said defendant agreed…
1Opinion of the CourtSargent, J.
It is claimed that the defendant was a tenant, at will or from year to yeai’, of the plaintiff in this case, and that the tenancy must be terminated before the plaintiff can maintain this suit. The latter position might be correct if the facts first assumed were true. By Rev. Stat., ch. 209, sec. 5 (Comp. Laws 534), it is provided that every tenancy or occupancy shall be deemed to be at will, &e., unless a different contract is shown. This legal presumption as to the character of the tenancy, only arises where no contract, either written or verbal, is proved.
But, where a contract is shown,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Barrels v. DickinsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1909