nant to repair, a landlord who rents the upper story of his building containing a water closet, with water fixtures, properly constructed and in good condition at the time of the lease, and who gives to the tenant the exclusive possession and control thereof, is not liable to a tenant of the lower story for damages caused by some defect in the water fixtures of said water closet accruing during the term of said lease. Haizlip v. Rosenburg, 63 Ark. 430 (39 S. W. Rep. 60). A promise to repair, made by a landlord to his tenant during the tenancy, and without other consideration than such tenancy, cannot be enforced. The measure of damages for breach of a lessor's contract to repair is the difference between the rental value of the premises with the repairs and the value without the repairs. Taylor v. Lehman, 17 Ind. App. 585 (46 N. E. Rep. 84). In the recent case of McCardell v. Williams, 19 R. I. 701 (36 Atl. Rep. 719), the court say: 'Where a landlord has covenanted to repair, and does not do so, the tenant has several remedies: He may abandon the premises if by reason of want of repair, they have become untenantable. Sheary v. Adams, 18 Hun. 181; Lawrence v. Burrell, 17 Abb. N. C. 312; Prescott v. Overstatter, 85 Pa. St. 534; Bisseil v. Lloyd, 100 Ill. 214; Lewis v. Chisholm, 68 Ga. 40. He may make the repairs and deduct the cost from the rent. Sparks v. Bassett, 49 N. Y. Super. Ct. 270; Myers v. Burns, 35 N. Y. 269; Wright v. Lattin, 38 Ill. 293. He may occupy the premises without repair and recoup his damages in an action for the rent. Westlake v. De Graw, 25 Wend. 669; Wright v. Lattin, 38 Ill. 293. He may sue for damages for the breach of covenant to repair. Lewis v. Chisholm, 68 Ga. 40; Block v. Ebner, 54 Ind. 544; Buck v. Rodgers, 39 Ind. 222; Hexter v. Knox, 39 N. Y. Super. Ct. 109." Particular evidence held to show that a landlord authorized the tenant to make repairs. Sheehan v. Winehill, 18 Wash. 447 (51 Pac. Rep. 1065).

Sec. 472. Repairs-Liability for negligence in making. A landlord is liable for his failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his tenants from injury during the making of improvements or repairs which are of such a nature as to render a portion of the premises unsafe for use, Robbins v.

Atkins, 168 Mass. 45 (46 N. E. Rep. 425); and he cannot escape this liability by placing the work with an independent contractor; especially if the work to be done is attended with danger to the tenants. Wertheimer v. Saunders, 95 Wis. 573 (70 N. W. Rep. 824; 37 L. R. A. 146); Wilber v. Follansbee, 97 Wis. 577 (72 N. W. Rep. 741). But in Missouri it is held that a landlord employing an independent contractor to build a privy on leased premises is not liable for the negligence of such contractor in leaving an excavation filled with water which caused the death of the lessee's child. Wiese v. Remme, 140 Mo. 289 (41 S. W. Rep. 797). Where, for a valuable consideration a tenant agrees that his landlord may make certain alterations and repairs, and the latter contracts with a competent mechanic to do the work, who has entire supervision and control of it, the landlord is not liable for damages resulting to the property of the tenant occasioned by the contractor's negligence. Stanley v. Chicago Trust & Sav. Bank, 165 Ill. 295 (46 N. E. Rep. 273).

Sec. 473. Miscellaneous notes. An action for the unlawful interference with the full enjoyment of the possession of leased premises is in the tenant in possession and not in the landlord. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. King, 63 Ark. 251 (38 S. W. Rep. 13). The death of the tenant for life terminates the lease of the premises existing between him and his lessee, and the latter may at once quit possession without incurring any liability to the reversioner for rent. Guthmann v. Vallery, 51 Neb. 824 (71 N. W. Rep. 734; 66 Am. St. Rep. 475). Miss. Ann. Code 1892, § 1068, construed and applied-action for enticing tenant-constitutionality of statute-sufficiency of evidence. Hoole v. Dorroh, 75 Miss. 257 (22 So. Rep. 829).

LEASES.

EPITOME OF CASES.

Sec. 474. What constitutes a lease-ExecutionValidity. An instrument by which an owner of land grants, demises and lets to another the "perpetual use" of a strip of land for a tramway, which the grantee agrees to build, such right and privilege to exist so long as the premises shall be used for the purpose agreed on and no longer, does not convey a fee, but is merely a lease which may be terminated by the nonperformance of the condition subsequent. Knapp v. Crawford, 16 Wash. 524 (48 Pac. Rep. 261). To give effect to a lease of real property, it must describe the subject matter of the demise with reasonable certainty, either by express words or by reference to something by which its location can be ascertained; and the want of such a description will render the lease inoperative. Bingham v. Honeyman, 32 Or. 129 (51 Pac. Rep. 735; 52 Pac. Rep. 755). Citing, 1 Tayl. Landl. & Ten., § 160; Wood, Landl. & Ten., § 211; Noyes v. Stauff, 5 Or. 455; House v. Jackson, 24 Or. 89 (32 Pac. Rep. 1027); Dingman v. Kelly, 7 Ind. 717. A lease of premises to be used for the sale of intoxicating liquors does not become void under Ohio Rev. Stat., § 4364, until the premises have been used for the unlawful traffic in intoxicating liquors. Goodall v. Gerke Brewing Co., 56 O. St. 257 (46 N. E. Rep. 983). Iowa Acts, 25 Gen. Assem., ch. 62, construed and appliedvalidity of lease of building for saloon purposes. McKeever v. Beacom, 101 Ia. 173 (70 N. W. Rep. 112). A lease of lands in the Cherokee Outlet made by the Cherokee Nation in violation of U. S. Rev. Stat., § 2116, is void. Mayes v. Cherokee Strip Live-Stock Ass'n., 58 Kan. 712 (51 Pac. Rep. 215). Particular contract held not to be a lease but a contract of service. Moreland v. Strong, 115 Mich. 211 (73 N. W. Rep. 140). Particular evidence held insufficient to warrant the cancellation of a wharf lease because of false representations. Ranstead v. Allen, 85 Md. 482 (37 Atl. Rep. 15).

Sec. 475. Parol leases. In Iowa it is held that evidence of part performance of an oral contract to lease land, for such a term as the statute of frauds requires a written instrument, will not take the contract out of the operation of the statute. Powell v. Crampton, 102 Ia. 364 (71 N. W. Rep. 579). Particular parol leases, void on account of the statute of frauds, held to create a tenancy at will. Barrett v. Cox, 112 Mich. 220 (70 N. W. Rep. 446); McIntosh v. Hodges, 110 Mich. 319 (70 N. W. Rep. 550.)

Where one agrees

Sec. 476. Construction of leases. to inclose unimproved land and make certain improvements thereon in consideration of having the use of it for a term of years, he has the right to the entire term in which to complete the improvements on the land. Wilson v. Owens, Ind. Ter. (38 S. W. Rep. 976). A provision in a lease that until the lessor shall cause the premises to be heated by steam heat his rent shall be a certain sum per month, does not bind the lessor to furnish steam heat. Gatch v. Garretson, 100 Ia 252 (69 N. E. Rep. 550). A provision in a lease of a part of a building on a city street, authorizing the lessee to occupy a designated portion of the sidewalk next to the building with a fruit and nut stand, will be construed as a mere license subject to the municipal control over sidewalks. Brown v. Schiappacassee, 115 Mich. 47 (72 N. W. Rep. 1096). A provision in a lease obligating the lessee to pay all assessments for street improvements levied during the term, does not authorize the lessee to bind the owner by executing a promise, required of such owner, under Ia. Acts 21st Gen. Assem., ch 168, §§ 17, 18, to waive all irregularities, in consideration of the right to pay street improvements in installments. Vorse v. Des Moines Marble & Mantel Co., 104 Ia. 541 (73 N. W. Rep. 1064). A printed provision in a lease authorizing a forfeiture and reentry if the lessee shall make default in the performance of any covenant contained therein, applies to a written provision that the lessee shall pay all taxes on the property before they become delinquent. Heiple v. Reinhart, 100 Ia. 525 (69 N. W. Rep. 871). Where a lessee took possession of premises on April 8, 1892, under a lease bearing that date providing that said lease was "to extend for the

term of one year from the date hereof," it is held that the term expired at midnight of April 7, 1893. Buchanan v. Whitman, 151 N. Y. 253 (45 N. E. Rep. 556). Where one acquainted with a building in course of erection and all of its surroundings, takes a lease which recites that he has hired all that certain store, basement and vault, now in course of erection, on that certain lot of land and premises * * * known as street No. 35, N. street," it is held that only the building is demised and not the small open places between it and another building of the lessor, left for the purpose of furnishing air and light. Klie v. Von Broock, 56 N. J. Eq. 18 (37 Atl. Rep. 469). A provision in a lease releasing the lessor from liability from loss to the lessee's property on the premises, "if the whole or any part thereof shall be destroyed or damaged by fire, water or otherwise, or by the use or abuse of the cochituate water, or by the leakage or bursting of water pipes, or in any other way or manner," does not relieve the lessor from liability from damage to his tenant's property resulting from his negligent operation of heating apparatus in other portions of the building which remain under his control. Railton v. Taylor, 20 R. I. 279 (38 Atl. Rep. 980; 39 L. R. A. 246). Where a lease was for fifteen years "unless sooner terminated by parties of the first part as hereinafter provided for," and under the provision referred to the lessors could terminate the lease at the expiration of ten years upon giving notice of their desire to do so, in which event arbitrators were to be chosen to inquire and determine what damages, if any, shall be paid by one of the parties hereto to the other in consideration of the termination of this lease at the time," it is held that the giving of the notice operates to terminate the lease and that the making of the arbitration provided for is not a condition precedent to such termination. Smith v. Rasin, 84 Md. 642 (36 Atl. Rep. 261). For construction of particular leases, see Jamaica Pond Ice Co. v. Boston Ice Co., 169 Mass. 34 (47 N. E. Rep. 442); Ely v. Randall, 68 Minn. 177 (70 N. W. Rep. 980); Rankin Co. v. Busick, Miss.

(22 So. Rep. 801). For construction of particular provision as to the reduction of rent, see Goldsmith v. Southwell, 95 Wis. 176 (70 N. W. Rep. 72). For the construction of a particular lease and waiver of lessor's right to enforce for