Scheelky v. Koch
119 N.C. 80
Opinion
“If the lease had been surrendered with the understanding that it should be cancelled ” the plaintiff could not recover. Everett v. Williamson, 107 N. C., 213, 211. The case state.d fails to show any such understanding or consent on the part of the plaintiff.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Scheelky v. Koch, 119 N.C. 80 (N.C. 1896).
119 N.C. 80 (Scheelky v. Koch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Frazelle
40 S.E.2d 367 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1946)
Monger v. . Lutterloh
142 S.E. 12 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1928)
Rucker v. Mason
1916 OK 961 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Murrill v. . Palmer
80 S.E. 55 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1913)
Higgins v. Street
1907 OK 80 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1907)