Marshall v. Fraser, 258 S.W.2d 12 (1953)
- Citation
- Marshall v. Fraser, 258 S.W.2d 12 (1953)
- Parent Document
- Marshall v. Fraser, 258 S.W.2d 12 (1953)
- Jurisdiction
- Kentucky (state)
- Effective Date
- 1953-03-27
Other Sections in This Document (12)
- Marshall v. Fraser, 258 S.W.2d 12 (1953)
- Marshall v. Fraser, 258 S.W.2d 12 (1953)
- Marshall v. Fraser, 258 S.W.2d 12 (1953)
- Marshall v. Fraser, 258 S.W.2d 12 (1953)
- Marshall v. Fraser, 258 S.W.2d 12 (1953)
- Marshall v. Fraser, 258 S.W.2d 12 (1953)
- Marshall v. Fraser, 258 S.W.2d 12 (1953)
- Marshall v. Fraser, 258 S.W.2d 12 (1953)
- Marshall v. Fraser, 258 S.W.2d 12 (1953)
- Marshall v. Fraser, 258 S.W.2d 12 (1953)
- Marshall v. Fraser, 258 S.W.2d 12 (1953)
- Marshall v. Fraser, 258 S.W.2d 12 (1953)
Full Text
606 charsThere is evidence in the record that the roof leaked after the lessee had attempted to repair it and that the water caused additional damage to the ceiling, walls and floor of the building. After the assignment of the lease, the lessee on several occasions endeavored to patch the roof, but apparently never fully succeeded. Finally, after approximately four years from the date of the lease, the lessee installed a built-up roof, as called for in the lease, which extended frpm the rear of the building to the second girder,. leaving fifty-three feet of tin roof. He then told the lessor he “was through.”