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
852 charsAppellant complains of instruction No. 3 given in that their good faith belief of their right to hold over was limited to so believing “under the terms of the contract.” The instruction followed the language of the answer pleading good faith as a defense to the action for double rent. The testimony for appellant tending to establish that it held over in good faith was confined to their belief that they had such right under the contract, and their statement that the attorney so advised them. Hence that question was submitted as the issue was made by the pleading and evidence. That instruction was more favorable to it than the law relative to the question authorizes, in that the jury was not required to believe that its good faith and belief that it had the right to remain in possession were based upon reasonable grounds, and in that the *600