Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Citation
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Parent Document
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Jurisdiction
- Kentucky (state)
- Effective Date
- 1979-12-18
Other Sections in This Document (31)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
Full Text
649 charsThe trial court having found that respondents were in possession of the property under a landlord and tenant relationship and not under a contract for the purchase of the subject property, the only obligation of movant to respondents was to repay anything which he had improperly received. This is the instruction made to the jury, with the further admonition that the jury could set off, in favor of movant, against improvements any rent owed by the respondents to movant. We find no error in the court’s instruction. In addition, the court found that the improvements were removed by the respondents prior to the time they moved from the property.