Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Citation
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Parent Document
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Jurisdiction
- Kentucky (state)
- Effective Date
- 1961-06-02
Other Sections in This Document (29)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
- Venters v. Reynolds, 354 S.W.2d 521 (1961)
Full Text
625 charsIt is suggested in lessor’s brief that lessor is entitled to the damages since “she might have demanded an increase in rental payment to her in consideration of her consent to such sublease.” No authority is cited by lessor to sustain this contention. The answer to the contention is that lessor was paid the rental to which she was entitled under the lease, that she waived the right to claim a forfeiture and the benefit of any such breach, as has been pointed out, and that no such claim was ever asserted prior to filing an action or in the pleadings of the action. The judgment is erroneous in the award of such damages.