McKnight v. Broadway & Fourth Avenue Realty Co., 273 S.W. 32 (1925)
- Citation
- McKnight v. Broadway & Fourth Avenue Realty Co., 273 S.W. 32 (1925)
- Parent Document
- McKnight v. Broadway & Fourth Avenue Realty Co., 273 S.W. 32 (1925)
- Jurisdiction
- Kentucky (state)
- Effective Date
- 1925-06-05
Other Sections in This Document (17)
- McKnight v. Broadway & Fourth Avenue Realty Co., 273 S.W. 32 (1925)
- McKnight v. Broadway & Fourth Avenue Realty Co., 273 S.W. 32 (1925)
- McKnight v. Broadway & Fourth Avenue Realty Co., 273 S.W. 32 (1925)
- McKnight v. Broadway & Fourth Avenue Realty Co., 273 S.W. 32 (1925)
- McKnight v. Broadway & Fourth Avenue Realty Co., 273 S.W. 32 (1925)
- McKnight v. Broadway & Fourth Avenue Realty Co., 273 S.W. 32 (1925)
- McKnight v. Broadway & Fourth Avenue Realty Co., 273 S.W. 32 (1925)
- McKnight v. Broadway & Fourth Avenue Realty Co., 273 S.W. 32 (1925)
- McKnight v. Broadway & Fourth Avenue Realty Co., 273 S.W. 32 (1925)
- McKnight v. Broadway & Fourth Avenue Realty Co., 273 S.W. 32 (1925)
- McKnight v. Broadway & Fourth Avenue Realty Co., 273 S.W. 32 (1925)
- McKnight v. Broadway & Fourth Avenue Realty Co., 273 S.W. 32 (1925)
- McKnight v. Broadway & Fourth Avenue Realty Co., 273 S.W. 32 (1925)
- McKnight v. Broadway & Fourth Avenue Realty Co., 273 S.W. 32 (1925)
- McKnight v. Broadway & Fourth Avenue Realty Co., 273 S.W. 32 (1925)
- McKnight v. Broadway & Fourth Avenue Realty Co., 273 S.W. 32 (1925)
- McKnight v. Broadway & Fourth Avenue Realty Co., 273 S.W. 32 (1925)
Full Text
1,416 charsOctober 26, 1923, the lessee was represented by its president, Mr. Brown, and its attorney, Mr. Forcht. Mr. Brown stated that he had called the meeting to see if there could be an agreement arranged whereby it would not be necessary to restore the building to its former state, explaining that it seemed to appellee to be a foolish waste of money to restore the temporary building to a condition “equal in value, size, character and height,” as provided in the lease, when the building would have to be torn down on January 1, 1929, at the latest, and that he proposed, if his plans materialized, to begin the construction of the permanent building on January 1, 1926. For this reason he sought permission to make less expensive repairs, which would protect the first-floor tenants, and leave the second floor unoccupied. He also asked permission to withdraw the $50,000.00 of securities and to substitute a $400,000.00 bond therefor. The latter proposition was declined by the three appellants, but that they agreed that the second floor need not be restored, and that the building might be repaired as proposed by Mr. Brown, if the building inspector of Louisville would agree thereto, is made certain by the fact that in their answer, counterclaim and cross-petition filed herein, they asserted that “they agreed for themselves only,” and that they had no power to represent or bind their brother, Henry McKnight.