Wiggin v. Smith
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Writ or Entry, dated July 1,1871, in favor of Charles W. Wiggin and against Harriet S. Smith. Plea, nul disseizin. The plaintiff put in eA'idence a deed from Daniel Waldron and wife to himself, dated September 27, 1859, of land Avhich, he contended, included the demanded premises, and a plan thereof, which, in connection with the deed, was exhibited and explained by a surveyor, a Avitness for the plaintiff’. The deed is made a part of the case.
Read the full summary
Writ or Entry, dated July 1,1871, in favor of Charles W. Wiggin and against Harriet S. Smith. Plea, nul disseizin. The plaintiff put in eA'idence a deed from Daniel Waldron and wife to himself, dated September 27, 1859, of land Avhich, he contended, included the demanded premises, and a plan thereof, which, in connection with the deed, was exhibited and explained by a surveyor, a Avitness for the plaintiff’. The deed is made a part of the case. The defendant moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that the description of the premises in the deed did not include those in dispute. The court…
1Opinion of the CourtSargent, C. J.
The exception to the deposition of Daniel Waldron was not well taken. We have examined the deposition and the caption, and find them in proper form. We have no doubt but that the magistrate was properly allowed to amend the caption, and we do not find that it was objectionable as thus amended.
The position, that the defendant may be a tenant at will of the plaintiff, and that this teuaucy has not been terminated, and, therefore, that the plaintiff has no right to the possession, and so cannot maintain this action, is not well taken. The defendant has pleaded the general issue, nul disseizin,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Graves v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1860