feiture, see Cook v. Parker, 67 Minn. 374 (69 N. W. Rep. 1099).

Sec. 477. Construction of leases-Stipulations as to the payment of rent-Determination of rent by appraisement. Where the lease stipulates that the rent shall be paid in monthly installments and provides that upon the lessee's failure to pay the same for five days after it becomes due, the whole rent reserved shall become due, the lessor having the right to avail himself of this stipulation, does not waive it by acceptance of overdue rent. Teufel v. Rown, 179 Pa. St. 408 (36 Atl. Rep. 224). Where a lease provides for the payment of the rent in monthly installments and requires the first payment to be made on the first day of the term, but does not provide for the payment in advance of the other payments, a failure of the lessee to pay in advance for a subsequent month is not a ground for forfeiture of the lease. Liebe v. Nicolai, 30 Or. 364 (48 Pac. Rep. 172). The court say: 'The rule seems to be well settled that, when the lease contains no covenant fixing the time when the rent shall become due, it is payable at the end of the term. Boyd v. McCombs, 4 Pa. St. 146; Gravey v. Dobyns, 8 Mo. 213; Ridgley v. Stillwell, 27 Mo. 128; Duryee v. Turner, 20 Mo. App. 34; Bordman v. Osborn, 23 Pick, 295; Dinon v. Nicolls, 39 Ill. 372 (89 Am. Dec. 312).”

Where the lease provides for the determination of the amount of rent by appraisers, to be selected in a certain manner, a court of equity has power to make the appraisement where the appraisers are not selected or fail to act. Grosvenor v. Flint, 20 R. I. 21 (37 Atl. Rep. 304). See Ballards' Law of Real Prop., Vol. IV, § 432. Where a lease of lands, bounded on one side by a river, provides for the payment of a certain per cent. of the appraised value of the land as rental, appraisements to be made at stated intervals, it is held that the lessor is entitled to have considered accretions formed by the recession of the river since the preceding appraisement. Allen v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 137 Mo. 205 (38 S. W. Rep. 957).

Sec. 478. Covenants in leases. In the absence of a contrary provision, a covenant for quiet enjoyment will be

implied. Hanley v. Banks, 6 Okla. 79 (51 Pac. Rep. 664). A lessee's covenant to pay "the water tax and one-half of all other taxes levied on said property," does not include taxes for municipal improvements. De Clercq v. Barber Asphalt Pav. Co., 167 Ill. 215 (47 N. E. Rep. 367). The purpose for which property is leased must be observed, and the acceptance of a lease of premises for a certain purpose amounts to a covenant on the part of the lessee that he will so use them, a violation of which may be enjoined by the lessor. Spalding Hotel Co. v. Emerson, 69 Minn. 292 (72 N. W. Rep. 119). A covenant in a lease against an assignment or subleasing by the lessees without the consent of the lessor, is for the benefit of the lat ter and can only be enforced by him. Holman v. De LinRiver-Finley Co., 30 Or. 428 (47 Pac. Rep. 708). A lessor failing to comply with his agreement to furnish water for a farm, is not liable for the lessee's expense in procuring water by an unnecessarily expensive mode. Ladner v. Balsley, 103 Ia. 674 (72 N. W. Rep. 787). Applying Cal. Civ. Code, § 1927, providing that "an agreement to let upon hire binds the letter to secure to the hirer the quiet possession of the thing hired during the term of the hiring, against all persons lawfully claiming the same," it is held that while the owner of a building consisting of several floors may make repairs, a tenant of one of the floors who is injured thereby may recover damages from the landlord for breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment irrespective of his negligence. McDowell v. Hyman, 117 Cal. 67 (48 Pac. Rep. 984). See Repairs.

Sec. 479. Renewal of lease. A covenant to extend or renew a lease, implies the making of a new lease. Kollock v. Kaiser,'98 Wis. 104 (73 N. W. Rep. 776). Citing, Orton v. Moonan, 27 Wis. 272. A mere covenant to renew a term at the option of the lessee is not an actual renting for a longer period than the term specified. James v. Kibler's Adm'r, 94 Va. 165 (26 S. E. Rep. 417). The renewal of a lease by a partnership lessor, which the statute requires to be in writing, cannot be made by a surviving partner, unless authorized in writing by the heirs of the deceased partner. Oliver v. Olmstead, 112 Mich. 483 (70 N. W. Rep. 1036). The renewal of a lease upon the same terms, conditions and limitations as

expressed in the original instrument, adopts the terms of the original lease as to the manner of the termination of the new term. Quidort v. Bullitt, 60 N. J. L. 119 (36 Atl. Rep. 881). A general covenant in a lease to extend or renew, implies the making of a new lease for an additional term equal to the first and upon the same terms including that of rent, except the covenant to renew. Such general covenant to extend or renew the lease does not imply a continuation or renewal of the special covenant, because that would have the effect, by construction, to make the lease perpetual, or to call for renewals in perpetuity. Kollock v. Kaiser, 98 Wis. 104 (73 N. W. Rep. 776). Citing, Rutgers v. Hunter, 6 Johns., ch. 215; Cunningham v. Pattee, 99 Mass. 248; Ranlet v. Cook, 44 N. H. 512 (84 Am. Dec. 92); McAdoo v. Callum, 86 N. C. 419; Tracy v. Exchange, 7 N. Y. (3 Selden) 472 (57 Am. Dec. 538); Transportation Co. v. Lansing, 49 N. Y. 499; Hughes v. Windpfennig, 10 Ind. App. 122 (37 N. E. Rep. 432).

Sec. 480. Assignment of leases. Possession of the leased premises by a third person under the lessee, creates the presumption that the lease has been assigned by the lessee to such person. Dickinson v. Fitterling, 69 Minn. 162 (71 N W. Rep. 1030). Where the lessor of property assigns a lease, the lessee is under legal obligation to pay the rent to the assignee. Kelly v. Bowerman, 113 Mich. 446 (71 N. W. Rep. 836). The assignment of a partnership lease made by one of the firm is valid if made by the authority of the other members of the firm or ratified by them. Edwards v. Spalding, 20 Mont. 54 (49 Pac. Rep. 443). The mere acceptance of rent from the assignee of a lease does not release his assignor. Edwards v. Spalding, 20 Mont. 54 (49 Pac. Rep. 443). Although a landlord may have given his consent to an assignment by the lessee, and accepted the assignee as his tenant, and received rent from him, yet the lessee is not released from his express covenant to pay rent, unless the landlord has accepted the surrender of the lessee and released him. Barnes v. Northern Trust Co., 169 Ill. 112 (48 N. E. Rep. 31). An action by a lessor on the covenants of the lease brought against an assignee at the request of the original lessee, does

not operate to release the latter from his liability. v. Cummings, N. H. (38 Atl. Rep. 503).

Whitcomb

Sec. 481. Assignment of lease-Liability of assignee. An assignee of an undivided one-half of the lessee's interest becomes jointly liable with the lessee on the covenants in the lease. Jackson v. O'Hara, 183 Pa. St. 233 (38 Atl. Rep. 624). An assignee of a lease is liable on the covenants therein which run with the land. The rule is that, as the liability of the assignee grows out of privity of estate, and that only, it ceases when that privity ceases to exist; and each successive assignee is liable for only such breaches of covenant as occur while there is privity of estate between him and the lessor. An assignee does not create a personal obligation which continues beyond the existence of the privity of estate, by a stipulation in the assignment that he takes "subject to the agreement in the lease." Consolidated Coal Co. v. Peers, 166 Ill. 361 (46 N. E. Rep. 1105; 38 L. R. A. 624). See Ballards' Law Real Prop., Vol. V, § 462.

Sec. 482.

Destruction of leased premises. In the absence of a covenant to that effect, a lessee is not bound to restore a building destroyed by accident without fault or negligence on his part. Earl v. Arbogast, 180 Pa. St. 409 (36 Atl. Rep. 923); Armstrong v. Maybee, 17 Wash. 24 (48 Pac. Rep. 737; 61 Am. St. Rep. 898). Where the lessee covenants to keep the demised premises in repair, and at the termination of the lease to surrender them in as good condition as they were at the date of the lease, he is liable for the destruction of the property, although it occurred without his fault. Priest v. Foster, 69 Vt. 417( 38 Atl. Rep. 78). Citing, Hoy v. Holt, 91 Pa. St. 88 (36 Am. Rep. 659); Phillips v. Stevens, 16 Mass. 237; Polack v. Pioche, 35 Cal. 416 (95 Am. Dec. 115); Linn v. Ross, 10 Ohio 412 (36 Am. Dec. 95). Substantially the same is held by the supreme court of Washington, Armstrong v. Maybee, 17 Wash. 24 (48 Pac. Rep. 737; 61 Am. St. Rep. 898). In Nebraska it is held, by a divided court, that an express agreement of a lessee to keep in good repair leased premises, and, at the expiraation of the term, surrender their possession in as good con

dition as they were when he entered, natural decay, wear and tear excepted, is not, and does not include, a covenant to rebuild buildings destroyed without his fault; if such was the common-law rule of construction of such a covenant, it is not in force in this state; where a substantial portion of leased premises is destroyed without the fault of the lessee, he is entitled to apportionment of the rent covenanted to be paid, and accruing thereafter, in the absence of an express assumption by him of the risk of such destruction. Wattles v. South Omaha Ice & C. Co., 50 Neb. 251 (69 N. W. Rep. 785; 61 Am. St. Rep. 554; 36 L. R. A. 424). The legal liability of a tenant in case of a destruction of the property by fire, cannot be changed by proof of a local custom. Fleming v. King, 100 Ga. 449 (28 S. E. Rep. 239). A tenant will not be held liable for the destruction of a leased building by fire on acount of his having removed pipes placed in it for extinguishing fires, where it is not shown that if the pipes had not been removed the fire could have been extinguished. Frank v. Head, Ky. (42 S. W. Rep. 913). Where, in order to relieve a lessee from his common law liability to pay rent for the term after the destruction of the premises, it is covenanted in the lease providing for the payment of monthly rent in advance that in case any building should be destroyed or injured by the elements or other cause, so as to be unfit for occupancy, without any fault or neglect on the part of the lessee, he should not be liable to pay rent after a surrender of possession, it is held that such provision does not reserve to the lessee the right to recover back any portion of the monthly installments of rent once paid on account of his surrender of the premises in pursuance thereof, before the expiration of the month for which he has paid rent. Felix v. Griffiths, 56 0. St. 39 (45 N. E. Rep. 1092). Where, on account of the destruction of a portion of the premises and the necessary occupancy of the landlord in repairing, the tenant is deprived of the use of a portion of the premises, he is entitled to a deduction in his rent to the extent of the value of such use, to be measured by the difference in rental value. Wayne v. Lapp, 180 Pa. St. 278 (36 Atl. Rep. 723). In Georgia the tenant of a rented house is liable for the stipulated rent to the end of his term, notwithstanding the destruction of the house