Legal Opinion

Keating v. Michael

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided June 19, 1922PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.

(after stating the facts). Generally speaking it may be said that lease contracts upon real estate must be definite in their terms in order to bind the parties, and that a general covenant to renew a lease is ' sufficiently certain because it imports a new lease like the old one upon the same terms and conditions. Nakdimen v. Atkinson Imp. Co., 149 Ark. 448, and Felder v. Hall Bros. Co., 151 Ark. 182, 235 S. W. 789.

That rule, however, has no application under the facts of the present case. In the case last cited the ■court quoted with approval the definition of the word “renew,” in Cunningham…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cunningham v. PatteeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
  2. Nakdimen v. Atkinson Improvement Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
  3. Felder v. Hall Bros.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1921

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Hall v. WeatherfordArizona Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Playmate Club, Inc. v. Country Clubs, Inc.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1970
  3. Phipps v. StoreyCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1980
  4. Rainwater v. HobiekaSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1946
  5. Bevan v. TemplemanOregon Supreme Court · 1933

8 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