Winter v. Taylor, 7 S.W.2d 209 (1928)
- Citation
- Winter v. Taylor, 7 S.W.2d 209 (1928)
- Parent Document
- Winter v. Taylor, 7 S.W.2d 209 (1928)
- Jurisdiction
- Kentucky (state)
- Effective Date
- 1928-06-01
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3446942/winter-v-taylor/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (13)
- Winter v. Taylor, 7 S.W.2d 209 (1928)
- Winter v. Taylor, 7 S.W.2d 209 (1928)
- Winter v. Taylor, 7 S.W.2d 209 (1928)
- Winter v. Taylor, 7 S.W.2d 209 (1928)
- Winter v. Taylor, 7 S.W.2d 209 (1928)
- Winter v. Taylor, 7 S.W.2d 209 (1928)
- Winter v. Taylor, 7 S.W.2d 209 (1928)
- Winter v. Taylor, 7 S.W.2d 209 (1928)
- Winter v. Taylor, 7 S.W.2d 209 (1928)
- Winter v. Taylor, 7 S.W.2d 209 (1928)
- Winter v. Taylor, 7 S.W.2d 209 (1928)
- Winter v. Taylor, 7 S.W.2d 209 (1928)
- Winter v. Taylor, 7 S.W.2d 209 (1928)
Full Text
732 charsIt was held that this provision imposed no duty on the lessor to restore, although it did relieve the lessee from having to pay rent until the restoration was had. Therefore, when the Brookhill building was damaged by the fire of March 28th, there was no obligation on the part of the appellees to restore the building. As stated, the clause which we have quoted from the lease was inserted to prevent the tenant being entirely discharged from having to pay rent under section 2297 of the Statutes if the building were destroyed by fire, providing the landlord elected to restore the building after such destruction. The word “destroyed” in the lease, therefore, should receive the same construction as the like word in the statute.