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
743 charsInstruction A offered by appellant was properly refused because it submitted advice of counsel as a complete defense. Instruction B offered by appellant was properly refused because the instruction given fully covered that feature of the case. Instruction C offered by appellant was properly refused because the contract itself and the pleadings with reference thereto fixed the beginning of the lease contract at June 1, 1923, instead of July 1,1923, as that instruction would have given the jury authority to conclude. Instruction D offered by ■ appellant was properly refused because there was no evidence tending to establish that appellee, Stock, expressly or impliedly agreed either by words or acts or both to an extension of the lease.