Case ID: nh_92/html/0182-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rockingham,
    June 24, 1942.
    No. 3334.
    Arthur E. Robbins v. Ella Lamont Ducey & a.
    
    
      Richard E. Shute, for the plaintiff.
    
      Batchelder & Wheeler, for the remainderman.
   Per Curiam.

Although the property was taxed to the remainder-man, as between her and the plaintiff it was the latter’s obligation to pay the taxes, in the absence of an agreement by the remainderman to pay them. Bodwell v. Nutter, 63 N. H. 446, 448; Reeves v. Huckins, 80 N. H. 348, 350. It would be inequitable for the plaintiff to acquire the remainderman’s title through failure to discharge his obligations to her. In bidding in the property he paid for a lien which it was his duty to discharge, and he thus paid a tax which he ought to pay. Woodbury v. Swan, 59 N. H. 22; Saunders v. Farmer, 62 N. H. 572; Barker v. Jones, 62 N. H. 497; Laton v. Balcom, 64 N. H. 92, 94.

Case discharged.