Deibel v. Kinnear
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
*686OPINION
By ROBERTS, J.
The fact that no deed had been prepared by Mr. Kinnear; that he had no communication with Mr. Deibel to the effect that a deed be prepared until this meeting mentioned, would indicate that he was at least somewhat dilatory in the exercise of his rights. The extension of the term, as provided in the renewal, reads as follows:
“The conditions and terms of the within option are hereby extended for a period of thirty days, ending on April 26th, 1930.”
It is claimed that thirty days would expire on the 25th day of April, and that the right to exercise the option had thereby been…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Fuller v. HubbardNew York Supreme Court · 1826
- Hartley v. . JamesNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Slocum & Hogan v. DespardNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- People v. MillsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861