65 Barnard v. Godscall, Cro. Jac. 309. See post, p. 149.
66 Jones v. Parker, 163 Mass. 564, 40 N. E. 1044.
(a) By the lessor, for quiet enjoyment and to pay taxes.
(b) By the lessee, to repair, to cultivate in a husbandmanlike manner, and to pay rent.
81. Implied covenants always run with the land.
Implied Covenants-by the Lessor.67
Besides express covenants, there are others which are implied by law from the execution of the lease.68 It is held that the words "demise" or "grant" imply a covenant by the lessor for quiet enjoyment.69 This covenant is broken only by an actual disturbance of possession or enjoyment.70 A failure of title, unless followed by an ouster, would not constitute a breach.71 And an eviction, to have that effect, must be under a legal title.72 The lessor does not covenant against trespassing or other wrongful disturbance by strangers.73 There is also an implied covenant by the lessor that he will pay all taxes and assessments levied on the premises demised.74 But there is no covenant implied that the premises are in a tenantable condition.75
67 For a discussion of implied contracts, see Clark, Cont c. 13.
68 l Tayl. Landl. & Ten. (8th Ed.) 301; 1 Wood, Landl. & Ten. (2d Ed.) 691.
69 Duncklee v. Webber, 151 Mass. 408, 24 N. E. 1082; Grannls v. Clark, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 30; Barney v. Keith, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 502; Tone v. Brace, S Paige (N. Y.) 597; Stott v. Rutherford, 92 U. S. 107; Maule v. Ashmead, 20 Pa. St. 4S2; Hamilton v. Wright, 28 Mo. 199; Wade v. Halligan, 16 111. 507. But see Sedberry v. Verplanck (Tex. Civ. App.) 31 S. W. 242; Groome v. Ogden City Corp., 10 Utah, 54, 37 Pac. 90.
70 Dexter v. Mauley, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 14; Sherman v. Williams, 113 Mass. 481; International Trust Co. v. Schumann, 158 Mass. 287, 33 N. E. 509; Dyett v. Pendleton. 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 727; Edesheimer v. Quackenbush, 68 Hun, 427, 23 N. Y. Supp. 75; Lounsbery v. Snyder, 31 N. Y. 514; Schilling v. Holmes, 23 Cal. 227; Moore v. Weber, 71 Pa. St. 429. Of. Cole's Case, 1 Salk. 190.
71 1 Tayl. Landl. & Ten. (8th Ed.) 355; 1 Wood, Landl. & Ten. (2d Ed.) 771; Sedgwick v. Hollenback, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 376; Stanard v. Eldridge, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 254; Mills v. Sampsel, 53 Mo. 360. Even a recovery in ejectment Is no breach, unless It Is followed by an ouster. Kerr v. Shaw, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 236.
72 Morse v. Goddard, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 177; Ross v. Dysart, 33 Pa. St. 452; Moore v. Weber, 71 Pa. St. 429; Mack v. Patch in, 42 N. Y. 167.
73 A mere trespass by the lessor would not be a breach, as It Is not an eviction. Mayor, etc., of New York v. Mabie, 13 N. Y. 151; Hayner v.
Same - By the Lessee.
On the part of the lessee, there is an implied covenant to repair.76 The duty extends, however, only to keeping a house wind and water tight,77 and he is not liable for deteriorations resulting from ordinary wear and tear,78 nor when the premises are accidentally burned down.79 Failure to repair constitutes permissive waste.80
Smith, 63 111. 430; Avery v. Dougherty, 102 Ind. 443, 2 N. E. 123. But see Bennet v. Bittle, 4 Rawle (Pa.) 338.
74 stubbs v. Parsons, 3 Barn. & Aid. 516; Watson v. Atkins, Id. 647. If the lessor fails to do so, the lessee may pay them, to prevent the loss of his estate, and deduct the amount from the rent. Mcpherson v. Atlantic & P. R. Co., 66 Mo. 103.
75 Reeves v. Mccomeskey, 168 Pa. St. 571, 32 Atl. 96; Blake v. Dick, 15 Mont. 236, 38 Pac. 1072; Doyle v. Railway Co., 147 U. S. 413, 13 Sup. Ct. 333; Jaffe v. Harteau, 56 N. Y. 398; Fisher v. Lighthall, 4 Mackey (D. C.) 82; Lucas v. Coulter, 104 Ind. 81, 3 N. E. 622; Blake v. Ranous, 25 111. App. 486; Stevens v. Pierce, 151 Mass. 207, 23 N. E. 1006. But the rule is otherwise when lodgings or furnished houses are let. Smith v. Marrable, 11 Mees. & W. 5. But see Fisher v. Lighthall, 4 Mackey (D. C.) 82.
76 Demarest v. Willard, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 206; Shelby v. Hearne, 6 Yerg. (Tenn.) 512; Pollard v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 210; U. S. v. Bostwick, 94 U. S. 53; Miller v. Shields, 55 Ind. 71; Turner v. Townsend, 42 Neb. 376, 60 N. W. 587. The lessor is never bound to repair unless there is a stipulation to that effect. Nor must he rebuild a house, if it burns down, without a covenant to do so. Sheets v. Selden, 7 Wall. 423; Leavitt v. Fletcher, 10 Allen (Mass.) 121; Gill v. Middleton, 105 Mass. 478; Doupe v. Gerrin, 45 N. Y. 119; Little v. Ma-cadaras, 29 Mo. App. 332, 38 Mo. App. 187; Heintze v. Bentley, 34 N. J. Eq. 562; Medary v. Cathers, 161 Pa. St. 87, 28 Atl. 1012; Co well v. Lumley, 39 Cal. 151; Jones v. Millsaps, 71 Miss. 10, 14 South. 440. The duty is imposed by statute in several states. 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 2041; 2 Shars. & B. Lead. Cas. Real Prop. 94.
77 Parrott v. Barney, Deady, 405, Fed. Cas. No. 10,773a; Kastor v. New-house, 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 20; Auworth v. Johnson, 5 Car. & P. 239.
78 Torriano v. Young, 6 Car. & P. 8.
79 Eagle v. Swayze, 2 Daly (N. Y.) 140. And see Payne v. James, 45 La, Ann. 381, 12 South. 492. Cf., however, Peck v. Manufacturing Co., 43 111. App. 360.
80 l Tayl. Landl. & Ten. (8th Ed.) 408; 1 Wood, Landl. & Ten. (2d Ed.) 980; Lothrop v. Thayer, 138 Mass. 466, and cases cited.
There is also an implied covenant to cultivate in a husbandmanlike manner.81 But covenants to pay taxes,82 to insure, or not to assign are never implied.83
Same - Bent.84
A valid term of years may be created without the reservation of a rent.85 But whenever a rent is reserved there is an implied covenant on the part of the lessee to pay it whether he ever take possession or not.86 And, where there is an express covenant to pay, a destruction of the demised premises will not relieve him.87 But when the tenant is evicted from part or all of the premises by a title paramount, his liability for rent ceases in proportion.88 And when he is evicted by the landlord even from a part, the whole lia81 Walker v. Tucker, 70 111. 527; Aughinbaugh v. Coppenheffer, 55 Pa. St. 347; Powley v. Walker, 5 Term R. 873; Legh v. Hewitt, 4 East, 154; Dalby v. Hirst, 3 Moore, C. P. 536.