But occasionally the courts have regarded the tenant as having been partially evicted because excluded by the landlord from the utilization of some easement or convenience appurtenant to the leased premises, although he retains possession of the premises to the same extent as before. See Brown v. Holyoke Water-Power Co., 152 Mass. 463, 23 Am. St. Rep. 844, 25 N. E. 966; Epstein v. Dunbar, 221 Mass. 579, 109 N. E. 730; Pridgeon v. Excelsior Boat Club, 66 Mich. 326, 33 N. W. 502; Hall v. Irvin, 78 N. Y. App. Div. 107, 79 N. Y. Supp. 614; Herpos-heimer v. Funke, 1 Neb. (Unoff.)

471, 95 N. W. 688; Edmison v. Lowry, 3 S. D. 77, 17 L. R. A. 275, 44 Am. St. Rep. 774, 52 N. W. 583; Kelly v. Miller, 249 Pa. 314, 94 Atl. 1055 (semble). Such a view, it is submitted, is open to question. See 2 Tiffany, Landlord & Ten. f 185e. See also 16 Mich. Law Rev. 162.

60 Upton v. Townend, 17 C. B. 30; Rice v. Dudley, 65 Ala. 68; Eisenhart v. Ordean, 3 Colo. App. 162, 32 Pac. 495; Fleming v. King, 100 Ga. 449, 28 S. E. 239; Hayner v. Smith, 63 111. 430, 14 Am. Rep. 124; Morris v. Tillson, 81 111. 607; Hayward v. Ramge. 33 Neb. 836, 51 N. W. 229; Stewart v. Childs Co., 86 N. J. L. 648, L. R. A. 1915C, 649, 92 Atl. 392; Miller v. Maguire, 18 R. I. 770, 30 Atl. 966.

Real Property.

[ Sec. 58 the acts are such as do not of themselves afford a presumption of intent.61 It is also said that the act of the landlord must be "something of a grave and permanent character,"62 and that a "mere trespass" by the landlord does not constitute an eviction.63 As examples of a mere trespass by the landlord such as not to justify the tenant in relinquishing possession and asserting an eviction, may be mentioned the act of the landlord in removing chattels from the premises,64 cutting flowers, trees or crops thereon,65 or digging coal thereon;66 provided, it should be added, such act does not interfere with the tenant's substantial enjoyment of the premises. A like view has been taken of the act of the landlord in piling wood on a part of the premises67 and in entering after a fire to clean the brick.68 On the other hand an eviction has been held to result when the landlord materially interfered with the access to the premises;69 when the landlord rendered the building unsafe by digging thereunder;70 when a sewer under the premises was rendered a menace to life and health by the use made thereof by the landlord on the adjoining premises;71 when the lessor habitually brought persons of bad character into another part of the same building of which the demised premises formed a part, and created such a disturbance, and drew such odium on the building, that the lessee and his family felt compelled to leave;72 and even when property was leased for a distillery, and the lessors refused to give their assent in writing to the use of the property for that purpose, as is necessary under the internal revenue act, this, in effect, depriving the lessee of the use thereof.73

61. Skally v. Shute, 132 Mass. 367, per W. Allen, J.

62. Upton v. Townend, 17 C. B. 30; Rice v. Dudley, 65 Ala. 68; Fleming v. King, 100 Ga. 449, 28 S. E. 239; Hayner v. Smith, 63 111. 430, 14 Am. Rep. 124; Barrett v. Boddie, 158 111. 479, 49 Am. St. Rep. 172, 42 N. E. 143, aff'g 57 111. App. 226; Miller v. Maguire, 18 R. I. 770, 30 Atl. 966. See Royce v. Guggenheim, 106 Mass. 201, 8 Am. Rep. 322.

63. Upton v. Townend, 17 C. B. 30; Newby v. Sharpe, 8 Ch. Div. 39; Rice v. Dudley, 65 Ala. 68; Isabella Gold Min. Co. v. Glenn, 37 Colo. 165, 86 Pac. 349; Fleming v. King, 100 Ga. 449, 28 S. E. 239; Hayner v. Smith, 63 111. 430, 14 Am. Rep. 124; National Furniture Co. v. Inhabitants of Cumberland County, 113 Me. 175, 93 Atl. 70; Royce v. Guggenheim,

106 Mass. 201, 8 Am. Rep. 322; Kimball v. Grand Lodge of Masons, 131 Mass. 59; McFadin v. Rippey, 8 Mo. 738; Elliott v. Aiken, 45 N. H. 30; O'Neil v. Pearse,

87 N. J. L. 382, 94 Atl. 312; Id.,

88 N. J. L. 733, 96 Atl. 1102; Ed-gerton v. Page, 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 320; Noble v. Warren, 38 Pa. 340.

64. Kimball v. Grand Lodge of Masons, 131 Mass. 59; Hayward v. Ramge, 33 Neb. 836, 51 N. W. 229; Newby v. Sharpe, 8 Ch. Div. 39.

65. Bartlett v. Farrington, 120 Mass. 284.

66. Tiley v. Moyers, 43 Pa. St. 404.

67. Lounsbery v. Snyder, 31 N. Y. 514.

68. Fleming v. King, 100 Ga. 449, 28 S. E. 239.

69. Pridgeon v. Excelsior Boat Club, 66 Mich. 326, 33 N. W. 502;

Unless there is an easement of light in favor of the premises demised as against the adjoining premises,74 no eviction can arise by reason of the landlord's act in building on the latter.75

Hall v. Irvin, 78 N. Y. App. Div. 107, 79 N. Y. Supp. 614; Hoeveler v. Fleming, 91 Pa. 322 (dictum); Edmison v. Lowry, 3 S. D. 77, 17 L. R. A. 275, 44 Am. St. Rep. 774, 52 N. W. 583. Compare Meeker v. Spalsbury, 66 N. J. L. 60, 48 Atl. 1026; Manchester, S. & L. R. Co. v. Anderson [1898] 2 Ch. 394.

70. Skally v. Shute, 132 Mass. 367.

71. Sully v. Schmitt, 147 N. Y. 248, 49 Am. St. Rep. 659, 41 N. E. 514.

72. Dyett v. Pendleton, 8 Cow. (N. Y,) 727; Wolf v. Eppenstein, 71 Ore. 1, 140 Pac. 751.

73. Grabenhorst v. Nicodemus, 42 Md. 236. This decision seems questionable, the landlord being guilty of no wrongful act, but merely failing to act as the tenant had anticipated. That the landlord influenced the refusal of a liquor license to the tenant has been held not to involve an eviction. International Trust Co. v. Schumann, 158 Mass. 287, 33 N. E. 509; Kellogg v. Lowe, 38 Wash. 293, 70 L. R. 9. 510, 80 Pac. 458. But see Smith v. Tennyson, 219 Mass. 508, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 121, 107 N. E. 423.

74. Post, Sec.Sec. 336, 351.

75. Keating v. Springer, 146 111. 481, 22 L. R. A. 544, 37 Am. St. Rep. 175, 34 N. E. 805, rev'g 44 111. App. 547; Royce v. Guggenheim, 106 Mass. 201, 8 Am. Rep. 322; Palmer v. Wetmore, 4 N. Y. Super. Ct. (2 Sandf.) 316; Myers v. Gemmel, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 537; Johnson v. Oppenheim, 12 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 454, 43 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 433; Dimmock v. Daly, 9 Mo. App. 354. But see dictum to the contrary in Hazlett v. Powell, 30 Pa. St. 293, with which compare Rennyson's Appeal, 94 Pa. St. 147, 39 Am. Rep. 777.