If realty is leased for the exclusive purpose of using it as a place in which to sell intoxicating liquors, and such sale subsequently becomes illegal, either under local option provisions or by general legislation prohibiting such traffic, such subsequent illegality is held to prevent the performance of the contract in accordance with its terms and to discharge such lease.1 Accordingly the lessee can not be held on his covenant to pay rent for the remainder of the term.2 If the lease provides expressly that the premises shall not be used for any other purpose than a saloon, such subsequent legal impossibility clearly operates as a discharge,3 although permission has been given to the lessee to keep a bootblack stand, a cigar stand and a restaurant, in addition to the saloon.4 If other provisions in the lease show that the property was leased for the sole purpose of operating a saloon,5 such as a provision making the validity of the lease expressly conditioned upon the lessor's securing satisfactory bond for the lessee, to enable the lessee to conform to the statutory regulations of the business of dealing with intoxicating liquors,6 such lease is discharged if such business is thereafter forbidden either under local option laws or under general prohibition laws. It has, however, been held that if a local option law is in force when property is leased for saloon purposes exclusively, the lessee assumes the risk of subsequent action under such local option law; and accordingly such lease is not discharged by the fact that under such law the sale of intoxicating liquors is subsequently made unlawful in the district in which the saloon is situated.7

Maryland. Standard Brewing Co. v. Weil, 120 Md. 487, L. R. A. 1917C, 929, 99 Atl. 661.

Maine. American Mercantile Exchange v. Blunt, 102 Me. 128, 120 Am. St. Rep. 463, 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 414, 66 Atl. 212.

Washington. The Stratford v. Seattle Brewing & Malting Co., 94 Wash. 125, L. R. A. 1917C, 931, 162 Pac. 31.

1 Halloran v. Schmidt Brewing Co., 137 Minn. 141, L. R. A. 1917E, 771, 162 X. W. 1082; Heart v. East Tennessee Brewing Co., 121 Tenn. 60, 130 Am. St. Rep. 753, 19 L. R. A. (N.S.) 964, 113 S. W. 364; The Stratford v. Seattle Brewing & Malting Co.. 04 Wash. 125, L. R. A. 1917C, 931. 1(12 Pac. 31; Koen v. Fairmont Brewing Co., CO W. Va. 94, 70 S. E. 1098.

2 Halloran v. Schmidt Brewing Co., 137 Minn.. 141, L. R. A. 1917E, 777, 162 N. W. 1082; Heart v. East Tennessee Brewing Co., 121 Tenn. 69, 130 Am. St. Rep. 753, 19 L. R. A. (N.S.) 964, 113 S. W. 364; The Stratford v. Seattle Brewing & Malting Co., 94 Wash. 125, L. R. A. I917C, 931, 162 Pac. 31; Koen v. Fairmont Brewing Co., 69 W. Va. 94, 70 S. E. 1008.

3 The Stratford v. Seattle Brewing & Malting Co., 94 Wash. 125, L. R. A. 1917C, 931, 162 Pac. 31.

4 The Stratford v. Seattle Brewing & Malting Co., 04 Wash. 125, L. R. A. 1917C, 931, 162 Pac. 31.

5 Hooper v. Mueller, 158 Mich. 595, 123 N. W. 24.

6 Hooper v. Mueller, 158 Mich. 695, 123 N. W. 24.

In some jurisdictions the city is held not to be responsible for action on the part of the state,8 at least if such action merely increases the amount of the license fee to be paid and does not absolutely forbid the sale of intoxicating liquor.9 No part of a license fee can therefore be recovered by one who has paid such fee for a license for a specified period of time, although he abandons the sale of intoxicating liquors when the state law which increases the fee takes effect.10

If, on the other hand, the lease of the premises is not for the purpose of conducting a saloon exclusively, but if such use is merely permissive, the fact that the business of dealing in intoxicating liquors is subsequently made illegal does not amount to a total failure of consideration, since the lessee may use such building for other purposes;11 and accordingly a lease of this sort is not discharged by a subsequent change of law making the sale of intoxicating liquor illegal;12 and the lessee can not treat such fact as amounting to a partial failure of consideration which will entitle him to an abatement of the rent which he has agreed to pay.13 A lease of a building to be used as a restaurant and saloon is held not to be discharged by subsequent change of law making the sale of intoxicating liquors illegal, since this does not result in a total failure of consideration.14 A lease of a "bar, barber shop, cigar stand, billiard room • • • and kitchen • " and certain floors of a hotel, is not discharged by the subsequent enactment of a statute forbidding the sale of intoxicating liquors.15

7 Houston Ice & Brewing Co. v. Keenan, 99 Tex. 79, 88 S. W. 197.

8 Fitzgerald v. Witchard, 130 Ga. 552, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 519, 61 S. E 227.

9 Fitzgerald v. Witchard, 130 Ga. 552, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 519, 61 S. E. 227.

10 Fitzgerald v. Witchard, 130 Ga. 552, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 519, 61 S. E. 227.

11 See Sec. 2708.

12 England. Grimsdeck v. Sweetman [1909], 2 K. B. 740

Alabama. O'Byrne v. Henley, 161 Ala. 620, 23 L. R. A. (N.S.) 496, 50 So. 83.

Georgia. Lawrence v. White, 131 Ga. 840, 15 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas 1097, 19 L. R. A. (N.S.) 966, 63 S. E. 631; J. J. Goodrum Tobacco Co. v. Potts-

Thompson Liquor Co., 133 Ga. 776, 26 L. R. A. (N.S.) 498, 66 S. E. 1081.

Kentucky. Baughmun v. Portman, (Ky.), 14 S. W. 342, 12 Ky. L. Rep. 342.

Louisiana. Shreveport Ice & Brewing Co. v. Mandel, 128 La. 314, 54 So. 831.

Maryland. Standard Brewing Co. v. Weil, 129 Md. 487, L. R. A. 1917C, 929, 99 Atl. 661.

Massachusetts. Gaston v. Gordon, 208 Mass. 265, 94 N. E. 307.

Texas. Houston Ice & Brewing Co. v. Keenan, 99 Tex. 79, 88 S. W. 197; San Antonio Brewing Asso. v. Brents, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 443, 88 S. W. 368; Hecht v. Acme Coal Co., 19 Wyom. 18, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 258, 34 L. R. A. (N.S.) 773, 113 Pac. 788, 117 Pac. 132.

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

Whether a lease of property for saloon purposes exclusively is discharged by subsequent legislation, which renders illegal the traffic in intoxicating liquors, depends upon the sense which is to be given to the word "saloon." In some jurisdictions the term saloon is used in its ordinary meaning of a place in which intoxicating liquors are sold; and where such meaning is given to the term, the lease is discharged if the sale of intoxicating liquors is subsequently made illegal.16 In other jurisdictions the term "saloon" is regarded as meaning a place at which people gather to buy either intoxicating liquor or other forms of beverages;17 and where such meaning is given to the term, a lease of property for saloon purposes exclusively is not discharged by subsequent legislation making the sale of intoxicating liquors illegal.18 Even where the latter meaning is given to the term "saloon," a lease of "barroom and fixtures • • * for occupation as a bar and not otherwise," is held to restrict the use of such property to the sale of intoxicating liquors; and accordingly such a lease is discharged if the sale of intoxicating liquors subsequently becomes illegal.19

If impossibility of performance is not due to any subsequent change in law, but to the failure of one of the parties to conform to the standards required by the existing law, such failure does not operate as a discharge.20 If property is leased for saloon purposes exclusively, and a license is denied to the lessee because of his personal disqualifications, he is regarded as having assumed such risk,21 and the refusal to grant him a license does not operate as a refusal to grant him the lease.22

Kentucky. Christian Moerlein Brewing Co. v. Roser, 169 Ky. 198, 183 S. W. 470; Barghman v. Portman, (Ky.), 14 S. W. 342, 12 Ky. L. Rep. 342.

Massachusetts. Taylor v. Finnigan, 189 Mass. 568, 2 L. R. A. (N.S.) 973, 76 N. E. 203.

Pennsylvania. Teller v. Boyle, 132 Pa. St. 56, 18 Atl. 1069.

Rhode Island. Miller v. Maguire, 18 R. I. 770, 30 Atl. 966.

Washington. Kellogg v. Lowe, 38 Wash. 293, 70 L. R. A. 610, 80 Pac. 458

14 Standard Brewing Co. v. Weil, 129

Md. 487, L. R. A. 1917C, 929, 99 Atl. 661.

15 Lawrence v. White, 131 Ga. 840, 19 L. R. A. (N.S.) 966, 63 S. E. 631.

16 Kahn v. Wilhelm, 118 Ark. 239, 177 S. W. 403; The Stratford v. Seattle Brewing & Malting Co., 94 Wash. 125, L. R. A. 1917C, 931, 162 Pac. 91.

17 O'Byrne v. Henley, 161 Ala. 620, 23 L. R. A. (N.S.) 496, 50 So. 83.

18 O'Byrne v. Henley, 161 Ala. 620, 23 L. R. A. (N.S.) 490, 50 So. 83.

19 Greil Bros. Co. v. Mabson, 179 Ala. 444, 43 L. R. A. (N.S.) 664, 60 So. 876