Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

60 N.H. 274

Nelson v. Hall

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided December 5, 1880

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1880-12-05

Bill in Equity, to foreclose a mortgage of a farm. Facts found by a referee. August 6, 1877, about a week before his death, the testator, Nelson, owning the farm, and living upon it, made an oral bargain with the defendants to sell it to them for $1,800. The bargain was made at his house, where he was confined by his last sickness. Nelson pointed out such boundary lines as were in sight, and correctly described another line that was in the woods out of sight.

Relies on Morrill v. Hovey · Towle v. Lawrence · Murray v. Whitcomb

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1880-12-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1914

4 state decisions

201880189019001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Foster, J.

¶1 In Murray v. Whitcomb, 58 N. H. 50, the answer was, that the vendor did not convey to the defendants what he agreed to convey. In this case, Nelson combed to the defendants all he agreed to sell, and all he could sell, but less than they agreed to buy. By reason of a misunderstanding of the location of a boundary line, the minds of the parties did not meet, and there was no irrevocable contract. But upon the misunderstanding, and without any fault on either side, Nelson delivered to the defendants a deed, by which the title of the whole of his farm passed to them; and as his agreement was to sell the farm for $1,800, they cannot keep it without paying him that sum. The law does not make for the parties a contract giving the defendants less land than they agreed to buy, for a less price than Nelson agreed to take.

¶2 Upon the present state of facts, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of foreclosure for the amount of the note; but the defendants may move for leave to reconvey the farm, and restore the plaintiff to the testator’s former position, upon an equitable adjustment to *276 be made at the trial term, where the questions of fact raised by the motion will be decided, and such decree will be made as legal justice requires in the state of things existing at the time of the decree. Morrill v. Hovey, 59 N. H. 107; Towle v. Lawrence, 59 N. H. 501.

¶3 Case discharged.

Doe, C. J., did not sit: the others concurred.
/60/nh/274 · .json · Public domain