Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Citation
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Parent Document
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Jurisdiction
- Kentucky (state)
- Effective Date
- 1929-06-14
Other Sections in This Document (28)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
- Pack v. Feuchtenberger, 22 S.W.2d 914 (1929)
Full Text
859 charsThe evidence satisfactorily establishes that the rent was dne on the first of each month, and that the parties regarded the lease as having been begun on the 1st of December following the letting in November, 1926. On the 27th day of January, 1928, the appellee served notice on the appellants to “at once vacate the premises” which he had leased to them. This notice was served on the appellants on January 30, 1928. They did not move, and on March 10th following these forcible detainer proceedings were instituted, the detainer being laid as of March 2d. The whole defense of the appellants is based on the claim that they were entitled to a 30-clay notice before their lease could be terminated, and that the notice served upon them was ineffectual for that purpose. Appellee insists that he had a right to terminate this lease at any time without notice.