Muse v. Merrimack Valley National Bank, 114 N.H. 700 (1974)
- Citation
- Muse v. Merrimack Valley National Bank, 114 N.H. 700 (1974)
- Parent Document
- Muse v. Merrimack Valley National Bank, 114 N.H. 700 (1974)
- Jurisdiction
- New Hampshire (state)
- Effective Date
- 1974-10-31
Other Sections in This Document (19)
- Muse v. Merrimack Valley National Bank, 114 N.H. 700 (1974)
- Muse v. Merrimack Valley National Bank, 114 N.H. 700 (1974)
- Muse v. Merrimack Valley National Bank, 114 N.H. 700 (1974)
- Muse v. Merrimack Valley National Bank, 114 N.H. 700 (1974)
- Muse v. Merrimack Valley National Bank, 114 N.H. 700 (1974)
- Muse v. Merrimack Valley National Bank, 114 N.H. 700 (1974)
- Muse v. Merrimack Valley National Bank, 114 N.H. 700 (1974)
- Muse v. Merrimack Valley National Bank, 114 N.H. 700 (1974)
- Muse v. Merrimack Valley National Bank, 114 N.H. 700 (1974)
- Muse v. Merrimack Valley National Bank, 114 N.H. 700 (1974)
- Muse v. Merrimack Valley National Bank, 114 N.H. 700 (1974)
- Muse v. Merrimack Valley National Bank, 114 N.H. 700 (1974)
- Muse v. Merrimack Valley National Bank, 114 N.H. 700 (1974)
- Muse v. Merrimack Valley National Bank, 114 N.H. 700 (1974)
- Muse v. Merrimack Valley National Bank, 114 N.H. 700 (1974)
- Muse v. Merrimack Valley National Bank, 114 N.H. 700 (1974)
- Muse v. Merrimack Valley National Bank, 114 N.H. 700 (1974)
- Muse v. Merrimack Valley National Bank, 114 N.H. 700 (1974)
- Muse v. Merrimack Valley National Bank, 114 N.H. 700 (1974)
Full Text
380 charsDefendant argues that the rent increase amounted to a constructive eviction. Since the letter of June 30, 1971, was a proper notice to quit, the rental increase which it contained did not constitute a constructive eviction. Once Mrs. Turgeon received notice within the prescribed period, her rights were legally terminated and, therefore, constructive eviction was impossible. See