82 Except by statute. 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 2042.

83 I Wood, Landl. & Ten. (2d. Ed.) 701, 709; 2 Wood, Landl. & Ten. (2d Ed.) 954; 1 Tayl. Landl. & Ten. (8th Ed.) 398, 477, 479; Cburcb v. Brown, 15 Ves. 258.

84 For rent as an Incorporeal hereditament, see post, p. 375.

85 Sherwin v. Lasher, 9 111. App. 227; Hunt v. Coinstock, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 665. Cf. Hooton v. Holt, 139 Mass. 54, 22 N. E. 221; Osborne v. Humphrey, 7 Conn. 335. If no rent is reserved, there may be a recovery for use and occupation, according to the real value of the premises, unless a contrary intention of the parties is shown. 1 Tayl. Landl. & Ten. (8th Ed.) 434; 2 Wood, Landl. & Ten. (2d Ed.) 1328.

86 Mcglynn v. Brock, 111 Mass. 219; Mechanics' & Traders' Fire Ins. Co. v. Scott, 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 550; Mcmurphy v. Minot, 4 N. H. 251.

87 l Tayl. Landl. & Ten. (8th Ed.) 436; Peck v. Ledwidge, 25 I11 93; Hallett v. Wylie, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 44; Fowler v. Bott, 6 Mass. 63; French v. Richards, 6 Phila. (Pa.) 547; Holtzapffel v. Baker, 18 Ves. 115.

88 Frommer v. Roessler (Com. Pi.) 33 N. Y. Supp. 13; Lansing v. Van Al-styne, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 561; Carter v. Burr, 39 Barb. (N. Y.) 59; Fillebrown v. Hoar, 124 Mass. 580; Stevenson v. Lambard, 2 East 575; Friend v. Supply Co., 165 Pa. St 652, 30 Atl. 1134. Cf. M'loughlin v. Craig, 7 Ir. Com. Law, 117; Folts v. Huntley, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 210; Morse v. Goddard, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 177; Big Black Creek Imp. Co. v. Kemmerer, 162 Pa. St. 422, 29 Atl. 739; Sylvester v. Hall, 47 111. App. 304. But see Ray v. Johnson, 98 Mich. 84, 56 N. W. 1018; Miller v. Maguire, 18 R. 1. 770, 30 Atl. 966.

Ability for rent is at an end.89 It is customary to reserve a right of re-entry for nonpayment of rent.90

82. Rights Independent Of Covenants-as Incidents Of the relation, and independent of any covenants, the parties have the following rights:

(a) The landlord has a right to protect the reversion

(p. 141).

(b) The tenant is entitled to exclusive possession (p. 142).

(c) He may take estovers (p. 143).

(d) He is entitled to emblements when his estate is cut off by some contingency, without his fault (p. 143).

(e) He is liable for waste (p. 143).

(f) The lessee, and all persons claiming under him, are estopped to deny the lessor's title (p. 143).

(g) The landlord may distrain for rent (p. 145).

Although the rights and liabilities of the parties to a lease are fixed to a large extent by the terms thereof, there are some which exist by virtue of the relation of landlord and tenant. There is a tenure existing between them, the tenant holding of the landlord, and paying rent in return for the use of the land. Of the rights growing out of this tenure, we need mention only the right of the landlord to protect the reversion by maintaining actions for acts which cause a permanent injury to the premises,91 and that he may be liable to strangers for injuries resulting from the dangerous condition of the premises at the time the lease was executed.92 The tenant has a right to exclusive possession,93 which includes the right to enjoy all easements 94 servient to the demised

89 Coulter v. Norton, 100 Mich. 389, 59 N. W. 163; Snow v. Pulitzer, 142 N. Y. 263, 36 N. E. 1059; Morris v. Kettle (N. J. Sup.) 30 Atl. 879; City Power Co. v. Fergus Falls Water Co., 55 Minn. 172, 56 N. W. 685, 1006; Leishman v. White, 1 Allen (Mass.) 489; Christopher v. Austin, 11 N. Y. 216; Graham v. Anderson, 3 Har. (Del.) 364; Bennet v. Bittle, 4 Rawle (Pa.) 339; Lewis v. Payn, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 423; Colburn v. Morrill, 117 Mass. 262; Day v. Watson, 8 Mich. 535; Smith v. Stigleman, 58 111. 141; Pendleton v. Dyett, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 581; Neale v. Mackenzie, 1 Mees. & W. 747; Cibel and Hill's Case, 1 Leon. 110; Burn v. Phelps, 1 Starkie, 94; Morrison v. Chad wick, 7 C. B. 266; Mcclurg v. Price, 59 Pa. St. 420. See, also, Grabenhorst v. Nicodemus. 42 Md. 236. See, also, Royce v. Guggenheim, 106 Mass. 201; Hoeveler v. Fleming, 91 Pa, St. 322. But cf. Smith v. Raleigh, 3 Camp. 513; Roper v. Lloyd, T. Jones, 148; Carrel v. Read, Cro.eliz. 374; Don-el v. Andrews, Hub. 190; Paradine v. Jane, Aleyn. 26; Ecclesiastical Com'rs v. O'connor, 9 Ir. Com. Law, 242; Lawrence v. French, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 443; Mckenzie v. Hatton, 141 N. Y. 6, 35 N. E. 929; Ogilvie v. Hull, 5 Hill (N. Y.) 52; Edgerton v. Page, 20 N. Y. 281; De Witt v. Pierson, 112 Mass. 8; Townsend v. Wharf Co., 117 Mass. 501.

90 When no right of re-entry is reserved, the landlord's only remedy for a breach of covenant is an action for damages. Brown v. Kite, 2 Overt (Tenn.) 233; Den v. Post, 25 N. J. Law, 285. And see post, p. 150.

91 Starr v. Jackson, 11 Mass. 519; French v. Fuller, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 101; Little v. Palister, 3 Greenl. (Me.) 6; Austin v. Railroad Co., 25 N. Y. 334; Aycock v. Railroad Co., 89 N. C. 321; Mayor, etc., of Cartersville v. Lyon, 69 Ga. 577; Jesser v. Gifford, 4 Burrows, 2141; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. .Smith, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 483, 23 S. W. 89; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Ful-uiore (Tex. Civ. App.) 26 S. W. 238. But see Anthony v. Railway Co., 162 Mass. 60, 37 N. E. 780.

92 Bellows v. Sackett, 15 Barb. (N. Y.) 96; Moody v. Mayor, etc., 43 Barb. (N. Y.) 282; City of Peoria v. Simpson, 110 111. 294; Reichenbacher v. Pah-ineyer, 8 111. App. 217; Marshall v. Heard, 59 Tex. 266; Todd v. Flight, 9 9. B. (N. S.) 377; City of Denver v. Soloman, 2 Colo. App. 534, 31 Pac. 507. So the landlord may be liable to the tenant for injuries, where the former retains control of part of the tenement. Elliott v. Pray, 10 Allen (Mass.) 378; Watkins v. Goodall, 138 Mass. 533; Alston v. Grant, 3 Bl. & Bl. 128; Phillips v. Ehrmann (City Ct. Brook.) 28 N. Y. Supp. 519; Payne v. Irvin, 144 111. 482, 33 N. E. 756; Davis v. Power Co., 107 Cal. 563, 40 Pac. 950; Mon-tieth v. Finkbeiner, 66 Hun, 633, 21 N. Y. Supp. 288; Phiuips v. Library Co., 55 N. J. Law, 307, 27 Atl. 478; Brunker v. Cummins, 133 Ind. 443, 32 N. E. 732. But see Moynihan v. Allyn, 162 Mass. 276, 38 N. E. 497; Freeman v. Hunnewell, 163 Mass. 210, 39 N. E. 1012; Mclean v. Warehouse Co., 158 Mass. 472, 33 N. E. 499; Daley v. Quick, 99 Cal. 179, 33 Pac. 859. The tenant, while he has control of the premises, is liable to strangers for negligence. Stickney v. Munroe, 44 Me. 195; Pickard v. Collins, 23 Barb. (N. Y.) 444; Payne v. Rogers, 2 H. Bl. 349; Anheuser-busch Brewing Ass'n v. Peterson, 41 Neb. 897, 60 N. W. 373; Lee v. Mclaughlin, 86 Me. 410, 30 Atl. 65. So he may be liable to the landlord for injury to the premises. Stevens v. Pantlind, 95 Mich. 145, 54 N. W. 716; Wilcox v. Cate, 65 Vt 478, 26 Atl. 1105; Olsen v. Webb, 41 Neb. 147, 59 N. W. 520.