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
1,137 chars“That the notice must point to the time for the tenants to quit is a general requirement based on obvious ground of convenience and justice. In holding that a demand for present possession would not operate as a notice to quit at a future day it was said, after an enumeration of the essential parts of a notice: ‘It is, however, unnecessary to say more here than that a simple demand of present possession, which is all that the testimony shows, is not a notice to quit after the expiration of 30 days. Without an antecedent notice, the landlord here was not entitled to possession, and it must be plain that a demand for a possession to which he is not entitled amounts to nothing, certainly not to a notice to quit at a future time.’ . . . And it has been held that notice by a tenant that he surrenders possession on the day on which the notice is given would not terminate the tenancy on the expiration of one month from that date, even though one month’s notice only is required to terminate such a tenancy. In explanation of this requirement, the Massachusetts court said: ‘The notice to quit is technical, and is well understood;