Legal Opinion

Kearney v. Hare

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 10, 1965No. 359PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLake, J.

It is the contention of the lessor-defendant that by holding over after the expiration of the original one year term on 15 November 1963, even though the rent for the full second year was paid on or before 9 December 1963, the lessee-plaintiff had only a tenancy from year to year, with no right of extension beyond 15 November 1964, other than that which is inherent in a tenancy from year to year, because he did not give to the lessor-defendant, at least thirty days prior to the expiration of the original term, written notice of his intent to extend the lease to a second year.

In the absence of…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Orr v. . Doubleday, Page Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1918
  2. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. FrazelleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  3. Holton v. . AndrewsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
  4. Murrill v. . PalmerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
  5. Harty v. Harris & KeeslerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1897

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Ellis v. Pauline S. Sprouse Residuary TrustTennessee Supreme Court · 2009
  2. Norton v. McCaskillTennessee Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Sosanie v. Pernetti Holding Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1971
  4. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., N.A. v. RubishSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  5. Coulter v. Capitol Finance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API