Legal Opinion

Corvington v. Heppert

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 16, 1952No. 32601Published

1DissentTaft, J.

As the majority opinion apparéntly recognizes, the principal question, to be considered in determining whether to reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals in the instant case is whether a lease for two years with an option in the lessee to renew the lease on certain specified terms for a period of three additional years is, within the meaning of Sections 8572-25 and 8572-73, General Code, quoted in the majority opinion, “a lease for a term not exceeding three years. ” It is conceded that, to use the words of Section 8572-25, there was “actual possession under the lease,” and that, to use…

Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Wineburgh v. Toledo Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Toupin v. PeabodyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
  3. L. & M. Properties Co. v. BurkeOhio Supreme Court · 1949

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

Powered by the Exa API