Legal Opinion
Ackerman v. Loforese
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided July 9, 1930PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHinman', J.
The trial court’s conclusion, from the facts found, was that the provision, in the lease of August 11th, 1919, that it might be renewed for a further term of five years at the option of the lessee, required the execution and recording of another lease in order to make it binding upon a subsequent 'purchaser, and that the continued occupancy by the plaintiff after giving notice of election to renew, and the acceptance of rent by the lessor and his successor, did not operate as a renewal but created a tenancy from year to year, only, carrying no option of purchase.
The key question on this…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Kaufmann v. LiggettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Orr v. . Doubleday, Page Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Andrews v. Marshall Creamery Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- Donovan Motor Car Co. v. NilesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
- City Coal Co. v. MarcusSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Galvin v. SimonsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1942
- Carrano v. ShoorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1934
- Womble v. WalkerTennessee Supreme Court · 1944
- Erickson v. BootheCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
- Didriksen v. HavensSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1949
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.