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
Other Sections in This Document (24)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
- Ashland Auto Sales Co. v. Stock, 290 S.W. 487 (1927)
Full Text
1,400 charsHere we have a written contract of lease which gave appellant the right to possession of the leased premises from June 1, 1922, to May 31, 1923. The written lease provided that the lessee or tenant might extend its term for another year provided ten days’ written notice of his intention so to do be given. No other means of acquiring the right to hold the leased premises after May 31, 1923, was provided by the lease. Appellant made no showing by the evidence that it acquired the right to remain after May 31, 1923, either under the terms of the lease by giving the ten days ’ written notice, or by anything said or done by appellee which could be held to be a waiver of the ten days ’ written notice provision of the lease, or by any contract or agreement entered into by the parties independent of the lease. Not only is that true, but on the day the lease expired appellee notified appellant in writing that its right to occupy the premises had terminated; that possession was demanded; and that unless possession was delivered it would be held to double rent. Upon its failure to deliver possession after that notice he seasonably took action to evict it by appropriate legal proceedings. Witnesses for appellant testifying that they were advised by counsel that it had the right to hold over under the lease do not testify that they disclosed that the ten days ’ written notice was not given.