There is an implied covenant on the part of the lessor to put the lessee into possession, 1 and that he shall quietly enjoy. (e) 2 But unless the demise be under seal there is no implied covenant for good title, but only for quiet enjoyment. (f) And an interruption by a landlord of his tenant's occupation without evicting him, has been held not to suspend the rent, in whole or in part. (ff) He is not bound to renew, without express covenant, (g) nor are such covenants favored, if they tend to perpetuity, (h)1 but where they are definite and reasonable the law sustains them. (i) A covenant to "renew under the same covenants," is satisfied by a renewal which omits the covenant to renew. (j) But a covenant to renew implies a renewal for the same term and rent, and, probably, on the same conditions as before, except only the covenant to renew; and if it be "to renew on such terms as may be agreed upon, " this is void for uncertainty. (k) If there be a covenant to renew at the election of the lessee, he must make that election before the lease terminates; (kk) and a mere continuance in possession will not operate as an election to renew. (kl) A landlord is under no implied legal obligation to repair, and it seems to be law on the weight of authority, that the uninhabitableness of a house is not a good defence to an action for rent. (l) 2 And if he expressly covenanted to repair, the

(c) Miller v. Travers, 1 M. & Scott, 342, 351; Blague v. Gold, Cro. C. 473; Mason v. Chambers, Cro. J. 34; Wrotes-ley v. Adams, Plowd. 187, 191; Windham v. Windham, Dyer, 376 b; Goodtitle v. Southern, 1 M. & Sel. 299; Doe v. Galloway, 5 B. & Ad. 43; Pim v. Currell, 6 M. & W. 234, 269.

(d) Shep. Touch. 89; Morris v. Edg-ington, 3 Taunt. 24, 31; Kooystra v. Lucas, 5 B. & Ald. 830; Harding v. Wilson, 2 B. & C. 96.

(e) Line v. Stephenson, 4 Bing. N. C. 678, 5 id. 183; Holdeny. Taylor, Hob. 12; Hacket v. Glover, 10 Mod". 142; Shep.

Touch. 165; Noises' case, 4 Rep. 80 b. -Assumpsit lies against a landlord on his implied promise to give possession. Coe v. Clay, 3 Mo. & P. 57, 5 Bing. 440, Hughes v. Hood, 50 Mo. 350. And in the absence of any proof to the contrary, the tenancy under a written agreement begins from the day on which the agreement professes to have been executed. Bishop v. Wraith, 26 E. L. & E. 568; Hale v. City of London, etc. Co. 2 B. & S. 737; Steel v. Frick, 56 Pa. 172.

(f) Bandy v. Cartwright, 20 E. L. & E. 374; 8.C. 8 Exch. 913.

Sherman v. Williams, 113 Mass. 481; of " machinery " includes a "blast" on leased premises, Thropp v. Field, 11 C. E. Green, 82; but " adjoining buildings'1 will not pass unless particularly described, Ogden v. Jennings, 62 N. Y. 526; nor will a lease of a single room give the exclusive right to the outer wall, Pevey v. Skinner, 116 Mass. 129. - K.

1 This is the law in England and in a few States in this country; see note (e). But generally in this country, though the landlord impliedly covenants that he has good title to lease for the term demised, and that the tenant shall quietly enjoy the premises, Stott v. Rutherford, 92 U. S. 107; Harms v. McCormick, 132 Ill. 104; Ware d Lithgow, 71 Me. 62; Lanigan v. Kille, 97 Pa. 120, yet he is not liable for the wrongful acts of a stranger in withholding possession, Gazzolo v. Chambers, 73 Ill 75; Field v. Herrick, 101 Ill. 110, Sigmund v. Howard Bank, 29 Md. 324; Pendergast v. Young, 21 N. H. 234, 236; Gardner v. Keteltas, 3 Hill, 330; Cozens v. Stevenson, 5 S. & R. 421, 424.

2 Mack v. Patchin, 42 N. Y. 167. See Milliken v. Thorndike, 103 Mass. 382. Such an implied covenant means that the lessee shall not be disturbed rightfully in his possession. Underwood v. Birchard, 47 Vt. 305. Where an express covenant was for quiet enjoyment free from disturbance by the " lessor, his successors, or assigns," no further covenant as to enjoyment will be implied. Burr v Stenton, 42 N. Y. 462! If the lessor's covenant applies to acts of "himself and his heirs and all others claiming under him," the lessor will not be liable for a disturbance by the paramount title Dennett v. Atherton, L. R. 7 Q. B. 316 If ousted by a stranger, the tenant's only remedy is against such stranger. Moore v. Weber, 71 Pa. 429. - K.

(ff) Fuller v. Ruby, 10 Gray, 285; Bartlett v. Farrington, 120 Mass. 284; Walker v. Shoemaker, 4 Hun, 579.

(g) Lee v. Vernon, 7 Bro. P. C. 432; Robertson v. St. John, 2 Bro. Ch. 140.

(h) Baynham v. Guy's Hospital, 3 Ves. 295; Attorney-General v. Brooke, 18 id. 319, 326.

(i) Furnival v. Crew, 3 Atk. 83; Cooke v. Booth, Cowp. 819; Willan v. Willan, 16 Ves. 72, 84; Sadlier v. Biggs, 27 E.. L. & E. 74.

(j) Carr v. Ellison, 20 Wend. 178. See also Abeel v. Radeliff, 13 Johns. 297; Brand v. Frumveller, 32 Mich. 215. But see contra, Bridges v. Hitchcock, 1 Bro. P. C. 522.

(k) Rutgers v. Hunter, 6 Johns. Ch. 215; Whitlock v. Duffield, 1 Hoff. Ch. 110; Tracy v. Albany Exch. Co. 3 Seld. 472; Pray v. Clark, 113 Mass. 283; Western, etc. Co. v. Lansing, 49 N. Y. 499.

(kk) Renoud v. Daskam, 34 Conn. 512.

(kl) Falley v. Giles, 29 Ind. 114; Bradford v. Patten, 108 Mass. 153.

(l) Arden v. Pullen, 10 M. & W. 321; Hart v. Windsor, 12 id. 68; Izon v. Gorton, 5 Bing. N. C. 501; Gott v. Gandy, 22 E. L. & E. 173; Moffatt v. Smith, 4 Comst. 126; Banks v. White, 1 Sneed, 613; Howard v. Doolittle, 3 Duer, 464; Clenes v. Willoughby, 7 Hill (N. Y.), 83; Estep v. Estep, 22 Ind. 114; Robbins v. Mount, 4 Rob. 553; Royce v. Guggenheim, 106 Mass. 201; Coe v. Vogdes, 71 Pa. 383. But see Bissell v. Lloyd, 100 Ill. 214. But where a house had been used as a house of ill-fame, and this was concealed by the lessor and unknown to the lessee, it was held to be a defence or a counter-claim to an action for rent. Staples v. Anderson, 3 Rob. 327. See post, ch. on Warranty, p. *574, n. (d). The cases contra, as Collins v. Barrow, 1 Mo. & Rob. 112; Edwards v. Ethering-ton, 7 Dow. & R. 117; Salisbury v. Marshall, 4 C. & P. 65, seemed to be overruled.

1 Cunningham v. Pattee, 99 Mass. 248. "To renew and to continue to renew " is a perpetual covenant, Page v. Esty, 54 Me. 319; which equity will enforce, Banks v. Haskie, 45 Md. 207. See Boyle v. Peabody Heights Co. 46 Md. 623; Blackmore v. Boardman, 28 Mo. 420. - K.

2 This rule applies to a shop or store, Lucas v. Coulter, 104 Ind. 81; Libbey v. Tolford, 48 Me. 316; or warehouse, Manchester Warehouse Co. v. Carr, 5 C. P. D. 507. So in letting land there is no covenant implied that noxious plants are not growing upon it. Erskine v. Adeane, L. R. 8 Ch. 756. But in case of a furnished house the law is generally otherwise. See post, * 589, note 1.

tenant cannot quit and discharge himself of the rent because the repairs are not made, unless there is a provision to that effect. (m) And if a landlord is bound by custom or by express agreement to repair, this obligation, and the obligation of the tenant to pay rent, are, it seems, independent of each other, bo that the refusal or neglect of the landlord to repair is no answer to a demand for rent. (n)1 It would seem from the authorities above cited, to be the law in England, that a tenant is justified in avoiding his lease, only by a positive wrong on the part of his landlord; as by erroneous or fraudulent misdescription of the premises, or their being made uninhabitable by the landlord. (0) It is there held, that if the lessor knows that his house is in a ruinous condition, and that the lessee is ignorant of this, he is not bound to declare its condition to the lessee. It is said, however, that he must do this if he knows that the lessee takes the house because he believes it to be sound and habitable, or if the concealment will amount to a deceit. (p) But it would be difficult to suppose a case to which these exceptions, at least in their substance, are not applicable. 2

(m) Surplice v. Farnsworth, 7 Man. & G. 576.

(n) Bro. Abr. Dette, pl. 18; 27 H. 6, 10 a, pl. 6. See also the reporter's note to Surplice v. Farnsworth, 7 Man. & G. 576.

(0) See Surplice v. Farnsworth. 7 Man. & G. 576; Hart v. Windsor, 12 M. & W. 68; Sutton v. Temple, id. 52; Arden v. Pullen, 10 id. 321.

(p) Keates v. Earl Cadogan, 10 C. B. 591.

1 If the landlord retains possession of part of the premises, he is liable for damage caused by the defective condition of snch part. Thus, where the rooms of a building were leased by the defendant to various tenants and the hallways remained in his possession, he was held liable for an injury arising from their defective condition. Gordon v. Cummings, 152 Mass. 513; Marwedel v. Cook, 154 Mass. 235; Peil v. Rein-hart, 127 N. Y. 387. So if goods of a tenant of part of a building are injured by water escaping from a waste pipe through the negligence of the landlord who occupies the remainder of the building and has charge of the pipe, the landlord is liable. Priest v. Nichols, 116 Mass. 401. So where the injury was caused by negligence in allowing a water-closet used by all the tenants of the building, and also outsiders, to overflow. Marshall v. Cohen, 44 Ga 489. So where the goods of a tenant of the basement were injured by the fall of a chimney which the landlord negligently suffered to remain out of repair. Eagle v. Swayze, 2 Daly, 140. See also Jones v. Freidenberg, 66 Ga. 505; Glickauf v. Maurer, 75 Ill. 289; Bernauer v. Hartman Steel Co. 33 Ill. App. 491; Toole v. Beckett, 67 Me. 544.

2 If premises which are dangerous from some cause not to be detected by observe tion, are leased by one who knows the danger without disclosing the facts, he is liable for the damage caused thereby. As where premises infected with small pox, scarlet fever, or diphtheria are leased. Minor v. Sharon, 112 Mass. 477; Cutter v. Hamlen, 147 Mass. 471; Cesar v. Karutz, 60 N. Y. 229; Snyder v. Gorden, 46 Hun. 538. Or a well is polluted. Maywood v. Logan, 78 Mich. 135. Or where other concealed and dangerous defects existed. Cowen v. Sunderland, 145 Mass. 363; Timlin v. Standard Oil Co. 126 N. Y. 514.