Case ID: nh_59/html/0120-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bingham, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Webster v. Blodgett & a.
    
    Payment of rent on a parol contract to lease land, and buildings to be erected thereon, for ten years, does not avoid the statute of frauds.
    Assumpsit, for the breach of a patrol contract to lease to the plaintiff land, and buildings to be erected thereon, for ten years. The plaintiff alleged the payment of part of the rent in advance. Subject to the defendants’ exception, the court ruled that the payment of-part of the stipulated rent is not necessarily such part performance as will-take the case out of the statute of frauds, but is evidence which the jury may consider on that question. Verdict for the plaintiff.
    
      Briggs f Suse and Sulloway f Topliff.\ for the plaintiff.
    
      Morrison, Clark, and Patten, for the defendants.
   Bingham, J.

A parol agreement to lease land, and buildings to be erected thereon, for ten years, is a contract to convey an interest in lands, and within the statute of frauds. G. L., c. 220, s. 14; c. 1, s. 20; c. 135, ss. 4, 12; Moore v. Ross, 11 N. H. 547, 552; Whitney v. Swett, 22 N. H. 10; Crosby v. Wadsworth, 6 East 602. A parol contract for the purchase of an interest in land is not taken put of the statute of frauds by part payment. Lane v. Shackford, 5 N. H. 133; Ayer v. Sawkes, 11 N. H. 148; Ham v. Goodrich, 37 N. H. 185; Emery v. Smith, 46 N. H. 151, 155; Luey v. Bundy, 9 N. H. 298; Folsom v. Company, 9 N. H. 355; Crawford v. Parsons, 18 N. H. 293; Kingsley v. Holbrook, 45 N. H. 313; Howe v. Batchelder, 49 N. H. 204.

Verdict set aside.

Clark and'Stanley, JJ., did not sit: the others concurred.