Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Citation
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Parent Document
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Jurisdiction
- Montana (state)
- Effective Date
- 1965-12-08
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1421283/kintner-v-harr/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (95)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
- Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
Full Text
860 charsIn the case at bar, we have no evidence that the assumption by Harr of the Riggs’ lease was done with the consent of the lessor, E. K. Taylor or Taylor’s assignees, the plaintiffs, that Riggs be relieved of his obligations under the lease. The fact that the landlord accepted rent from the assignee, as we have shown, does not amount to conduct, nor is it sufficient evidence of intention, releasing the lessee-assignor. See also James v. Johnson, 180 Okl. 106, 69 P.2d 51. It necessarily follows that Riggs remained liable for the rents under his contract with the lessor, the benefits of which were transferred to plaintiffs. Consequently, the district court erred in granting Riggs’ motion to direct a verdict in his favor against the plaintiffs. As a matter of law, the plaintiffs’ motion for a directed verdict against Riggs should have been granted. *480