Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Citation
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Parent Document
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Jurisdiction
- New Hampshire (state)
- Effective Date
- 2014-05-16
Other Sections in This Document (26)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
Full Text
541 charsHere, the defendant challenged the plaintiff’s title to the property on two grounds. He first argued that he had a life estate in the property because he conveyed the property to Kellogg-Roe based upon an agreement that he could live in the house for the rest of his life. The defendant next asserted, in essence, that Brookwood – rather than the plaintiffs – was the owner of the house and barn. Consequently, the defendant maintained that the plaintiffs were not entitled to bring a possessory action because they did not hold valid title.