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
1,296 charsCo., supra, does not lay down a contrary rule as appellee contends. There, as the opinion says, the letting was by the month. “The duration of the term was certain; that is, the term was for one month. The fact that a lease for a fixed period gives to the lessee an option of renewal will not affect its character as a lease for a fixed period.” In that case the parties stipulated for a 30-day notice of the election of the landlord not to accept the tenant’s exercise of his continuing option of renewal. But for this stipulation there would have been no necessity for such a notice. In the case of Berry v. Hale, 190 Ky. 510, 227 S. W. 793, also relied upon by the appellee, it is not clear whether the letting was by the month or from month to month, but a 30-day notice was given in that case. The real issue there was not whether the letting was by the month or from month to month, but whether it was either of these or by the year. Neither of these cases supports the appellee in his position that under a lease from month to month no notice of the election to terminate is necessary. As we have seen, the law is settled adverse to his contention. A notice of his election to terminate the lease being necessary on the part of the appellee, was the notice he gave in this case sufficient?