A term of years may be granted to begin in the future,28 provided the time is not postponed beyond the period allowed by the rule against perpetuities.29 An estate of freehold cannot be so limited at common law, because freehold estates were transferred by feoffment and livery of seisin; that is, by transfer of possession. This was a present act, and livery could not be made to operate at some future time. The creation of an estate for years, to begin in fu-turo, does not violate the common-law rule, since the only right the tenant has is a contract right to have the possession at a future time. The seisin remains in the landlord, and the tenant takes no present estate.

Same - Interesse Termini.

The interest which a lessee has between the making of the lease and his entry into possession is called an "interesse termini." This interest is assignable,30 and as soon as, by the terms of the lease, the lessee is entitled to possession, he may maintain ejectment.31 This right of entry is not destroyed by the death of the lessor or of the lessee.32

Duration, ruinate at a definite time, or at a time which can be made certain.34 However, a condition by which the estate may be determined before the expiration of the time for which it is limited does not make it invalid. For instance, a demise to a man for 99 years, if he live so long, is good.35 Nor does an option residing in one party to put an end to the lease at any time make it invalid.36

In most states, estates for years may be created for any length of time, but in a few states there are statutes which forbid their creation for more than limited periods, ranging from 10 to 20 years.33 Estates for years must be so limited that they will terdelacroix, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 433; Watson v. O'hern, 6 Watts (Pa.) 362; Moore v. Miller, 8 Pa. St. 272; Moshier v. Reding, 12 Me. 478; Smith v. Hubert, 83 Hun, 503, 31 N. Y. Supp. 1076. A lease of "a building" is a lease of the land on which it stands. Lanpher v. Glenn, 37 Minn. 4, 33 N. W. 10.

28 Colclough v. Carpeles, 89 Wis. 239, 61 N. W. 836; Cadell v. Palmer, 1 Clark & F. 372; Field v. Howell, 6 Ga. 423; Whitney v. Allaire, 1 N. Y. 305; Weld v. Traip, 14 Gray (Mass.) 330.

29 See post, p. 322;, Gomez v. Gomez, 81 Hun, 566, 31 N. Y. Supp. 206.

30 1 Wood, Landl. & Ten. (2d Ed.) 452; Soffyns' Case, 5 Coke, 123b; Wood v. Hubbell, 10 N. Y. 488.

31 Doe v. Day, 2 Q. B. Div. 156; Gardner v. Keteltas, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 332; Trull v. Granger, 8 N. Y. 115; Whitney v. Allaire, 1 N. Y. 305, 311.

32 l Wood, Landl. & Ten. (2d Ed.) 452; 1 Tayl. Landl. & Ten. (8th Ed.) 14; Co. Litt. 46b.

33 1 Stim. Am. St Law, § 1841; 2 Shars. & B. Lead. Cas. Real Pro© 44.

Same - rights And Liabilities Of Landlord And Tenant

77. The rights and liabilities of landlord and tenant may, for convenience of treatment, be divided into three classes:

(a) Rights under express covenants (p. 134).

(b) Rights under implied covenants (p. 138).

(c) Rights independent of covenants (p. 141).

78. Rights Under Express Covenants-by Express covenants the parties may vary their rights and liabilities almost at will.

79. Express covenants are either:

(a) Personal; or

(b) Such as run -with the land.

In many states, leases for more than a certain number of years must be recorded. Post, p. 218; 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 1624; 1 Shars. & B. Lead. Cas. Real Prop. 56. And see Toupin v. Peabody, 162 Mass. 473, 39 N. E. 280. An estate for years may be for a single year, or even a less period. Brown v. Bragg, 22 Ind. 122.

34 Murray v. Cherrington, 99 Mass. 229; Horner v. Leeds, 25 N. J. Law, 106; Cargar v. Fee, 140 Ind. 572, 39 N. E. 93; Goodright v. Richardson, 3 Term R. 462. For the method of computing time under a lease, see Atkins v. Sleeper, 7 Allen (Mass.) 487; Deyo v. Bleakley, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 9; Sheets v. Selden's Lessee, 2 Wall 177.

351 Tayl. Landl. & Ten. (8th Ed.) 86. And see Lacey v. Newcomb (Iowa) 63 N. W. 704.

36 King v. Ransom, 86 Wis. 496; 56 N. W. 1084. Cf. Clifford v. Gres-singer, 96 Ga. 789, 22 S. E. 399. And see, as to privilege of renewal, Pearce v. Turner, 150 111. 116, 36 N. E. 962; Robinson v. Beard, 140 N. Y. 107, 35 N. E. 441; Bullock v. Grinstead, 95 Ky. 261, 24 S. W. 867; Hughes v. Windpfen-nig (Ind. App.) 37 N. E. 432.

The mutual obligations of lessor and lessee are fixed almost entirely by contract; that is, by the covenants of the lease. An express covenant is an agreement under seal,37 though the same term is used in those states where seals are abolished. The most usual covenants by the lessor are for quiet enjoyment,38 against incumbrances,39 to repair,40 and to renew the lease.41 The lessee generally covenants to pay rent,42to insure,43and not to assign44 or underlet.45

37 l Tayl. Landl. & Ten. (8th Ed.) 2, 94; Clark, Cont. 72. No precise language is necessary to constitute a covenant. It may be in the form of a condition. Surplice v. Farnsworth, 7 Man. & G. 576. Or an exception. Rus-sel v. Gulwel, Cro. Eliz. 657; Lowell South Congregational Meeting House v. Hilton, 11 Gray (Mass.) 407. Or a recital. Penn v. Preston, 2 Rawle (Pa.) 14; Vaughan v. Matlock, 23 Ark. 9.

38 Shelton v. Codman, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 318; Markland v. Crump, 1 Dev. & B. (N. C.) 94; Suydam v. Jones, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 180; Hunt v. Amidon, 4 Hill (N. Y.) 345; Friedland v. Myers, 139 N. Y. 432, 34 N. E. 1055; Campbell v. Lewis, 3 Barn. & Ald. 392. Cf. Hochenauer v. Hilderbrant (Colo. App.) 10 Pac. 470; Sheets v. Joyner, 11 Ind. App. 205, 38 N. E. 830.

39 Ober v. Brooks, 162 Mass. 102, 38 N. E. 429; Sprague v. Baker, 17 Mass. 585; Gilbert v. Bulkley, 5 Conn. 262; Pillsbury v. Mitchell, 5 Wis. 17; Red-wine v. Brown, 10 Ga. 311.

40 john Morris Co. v. Southworth, 154 111. 118, 39 N. E. 1099; Thomson-houston Electric Co. v. Durant Land-imp. Co., 144 N. Y. 34, 39 N. E. 7; Clapper v. Kells, 78 Hun, 34, 28 N. Y. Supp. 1018: Dunn v. Bobbins, 65 Hun, 625, 20 N. Y. Supp. 341; Clifton v. Montague (W. Va.) 21 S. E. 858; Mumford v. Brown, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 475; Post v. Vetter, 2 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 248; Benjamin v. Heeney, 51 111. 492. The landlord must be notified that repairs are needed. Ploen v. Staff, 9 Mo. App. 309; Walker v. Gilbert, 2 Rob. (N. Y.) 214; Wolcott v. Sullivan, 6 Paige (N. Y.) 117.