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
709 charsIn the case at bar, there had never been any default as to the payment of rent and the lease did not contain a forfeiture provision. At common law there was no doctrine that the material breach of a lease would give right to a cause of ’action for breach of the entire lease and a fortiori, there was no doctrine of anticipatory breach- of a lease. Tiffany on Real Property, Vol. 3, Section 887, page 543; 46 Harvard Law Review 1117; People ex rel. Nelson v. West Town State Bank, 373 Ill. 106, 25 N.E.2d 509, 512. As stated in the last cited authority: “These common-law rules left a definite mark on modern law and in a majority of common-law jurisdictions the decisions are grounded upon these principles.”