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
995 charsAn examination of the original record in that case discloses that the claimed notice to quit was given on February 21st and the tenant was told to vacate on April 10th, the tenth of the month being the beginning of the monthly periods of the lease. Of course, if the facts were as claimed, the notice was sufficient, for it specified a proper day more than 30 days .after the notice was given. In the Caulfield case, the only question before the court was whether the tenant was guilty of forcible detainer on the 16th day of May, because of a notice given on April 15th that the landlord, under a lease by the month, where the periods began on the 7th of each month, demanded possession 30 days after the giving of the notice, and it was held that the tenant was not guilty. It is true the court by way of dictum did say that the “tenant would not have been guilty of forcible detainer until June 7th,” and that the landlord “could not require” the tenant “to remove before the next rental *274