Opinion
Decided June, 1879.
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 parol 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 Huse and Sulloway Topliff, for the plaintiff.
Morrison, Clark, and Patten, for the defendants.
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 out of the statute of frauds by part payment. Lane v. Shackford, 5 N.H. 133; Ayer v. Hawkes, 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.