Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)

Citation
Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
Parent Document
Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
Jurisdiction
Kentucky (state)
Effective Date
1927-01-18

Full Text

2,080 chars
The officers and agents of the corporation who had the management of its affairs testified that they in good faith believed they had the right to hold the building for another year under the contract,.and that they submitted it and disclosed the facts with reference thereto- fully to a competent, regular, practicing attorney and were advised by him that they had the right to do so. The attorney was not introduced as a witness herein. The testimony by appellant’s officers that they disclosed fully all the facts to the attorney was merely their conclusive statement that they had so done. None of them testified what the facts were that they disclosed to the attorney. The only testimony found in the record offered by appellant as tending to establish waiver upon the part of appellee of the stipulation of the contract that the option to extend the lease could be exercised only by giving ten days ’ written notice, is the testimony of three witnesses for appellant as to what was said by appellee the day the lease expired when he collected the last month’s rental. One of them testified: “He asked us} if we was -going to stay longer and we told him we was, and that was about the substance of what was said. ” Another testified: ‘ ‘All I remember he came in thdre and he asked us if we were going to stay and we told him we was, and he says that is all I wanted to know about it.” The third testified: “I remember Mr. Stock asking Simpson and Cogan what they were going to do about it, and they said they were going to stay and he replied that that was what he wanted to know, and I think he left then. That is all 'the conversation pertaining to the lease.” The day these -conversations occurred appellee served on appellants the written notice to vacate under penalty of paying double rent, and upon their refusal to do so instituted forcible detainer proceedings. No one for appellant claims to have complied with the stipulation of the lease that ten days’ written notice of the election to extend it must be given. *598 Construing the section of the statutes, supra,