Court Opinion

ID: 3555246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 23:06:32.310831+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:43.897698
License: Public Domain

The notice to quit was sufficient, provided the demand was sufficient. Gen. St., c. 231, s. 2. The demand was not sufficient, because it was for a greater sum than was due.
The common law on the subject of tenancies has been adopted in this state, except as it has been modified by statute. Currier v. Perley,24 N.H. 219, 223; Hazeltine v. Colburn, 31 N.H. 466, 471; McQuesten v. Morgan, 34 N.H. 400, 404. Under it, the demand must be of the precise amount of rent due; and this requirement has not been modified or changed by the statute. Jones v. Reed, 15 N.H. 68; McQuesten v. Morgan, supra; Coon v. Brickett, 2 N.H. 163; McMurphy v. Minot, 4 N.H. 251; Sperry v. Sperry,8 N.H. 477, 481; Jackson v. Kipp, 3 Wend. 231; Connor v. Bradley, 1 How. 211, 217; Taylor Landl. and Ten., s. 297; 1 Washb. Real Prop. 321; Vin. Abr., Rent, 2; Com. Dig., Rent, D.
Judgment for the defendant.
DOE, C. J., and SMITH, J., did not sit.