Klein v. Auto Parcel Delivery Co., 192 Ky. 583 (1921)

Citation: Klein v. Auto Parcel Delivery Co., 192 Ky. 583 (1921)
Parent Document: Klein v. Auto Parcel Delivery Co., 192 Ky. 583 (1921)
Jurisdiction: Kentucky (state)
Effective Date: 1921-10-21
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7234399/klein-v-auto-parcel-delivery-co/ ↗

Full Text

1,191 chars

But it is strenuously insisted that this case should be governed by the doctrine of the Grant v. Collins case, referred to, where the lease contained a privilege to renew and where there was a holding over by the lessor from September 1, 1911, when the original term expired, until May 1, 1912, at which time the lessee vacated the property. The landlord sought to hold .him responsible for the entire renewal period provided for, 'but it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to succeed because there was “enough in the lease” to show that the parties actualy intended and contemplated the execution of a renewal lease, since the lease said: ‘ ‘ Should the lessee continue to occupy the premises after the expiration of said term, or after a forfeiture incurred whether with or against the consent of the lessor, such tenancy may be terminated at any time at the 'option of the lessor. ’ ’ As will be seen it was therein agreed what should be the effect of a continued occupancy of the premises by the lessee, whether with or against the consent of the lessor, which was that the latter .was given the right, under such circumstances, to terminate the extended tenancy at his option.

Other Sections in This Document (21)

Full Text