71 Pa. St. 429, 10 Am. Rep. 708; Wood v. Carson, 257 Pa. 522, 101 Atl. 811; Perez v. Rabaud, 76 Tex. 191 7 L. R. A. 620, 13 S. W. 177; Dowling v. Nuebling, 97 Wis. 350,

72 N. W. 871

75. Buckley v. Cunningham, 103 Ala. 449, 49 Am. St. Rep. 42, 15 So. 826; Gately v. Campbell, 124 Cal, 520, 57 Pac. 567; Howell v. Schneider, 24 App. D. C. 532; Davidson v. Fisher, 11 Colo. 583, 7 Am. St. Rep. 267, 19 Pac. 652; Borggard v. Gale, 205 111. 511, 68 N. E. 10C3, aff'g 107 111. App. 128;

Purcell v. English, 86 Ind. 34, 44 Am. Rep. 255; Holton v. Waller, 95 Iowa 545, 64 N. W. 633; Mc-Keon v. Cutter, 156 Mass. 296, 31 N. E. 389; Rhoades v. Seidel, 139 Mich. 608, 102 N. W. 1025; Rankin v. Elizabeth Kountze Real Estate Co., 101 Neb. 174, 162 N. W. 531; Levine v. McClenathan, 246 Pa. 374, L. R. A. 1917B, 235, 92 Atl. 317; Cole v. McKey, 66 Wis. 500, 57 Am. Rep. 293, 29 N. W. 279.

76. Ante Sec. 51(a).

77. Moore v. Steljes, 69 Fed. 518; Murphy v. Farley, 124 Ala. 279, 27 So. 442; Brunswick Grocery Co. v. Spencer, 97 Ga. 764, 25 S. E. 764; Sontag v. O'Hare, 73 111. App. 432; Stillwell's Adin'r v. South Louisville Land Co., 22 Ky. Law Rep. 785, 52 L. R. A. 325, 58 S. W. 696; Cramer v. Baugher, 130 Md. 212, 100 Atl. 507; Robinson v. Heil, 128 Md. 645, 98 Atl. 195; Flanagan v. Welch, 220 Mass. 186, 107 N. E. 979 (semble); however decisions to the contrary effect, that he is not so liable,78 and the latter view would seem to be the more satisfactory from the standpoint of principle, since one should not, by reason of a breach of contract, be subjected to liability as for a tort.79 Not infrequently recovery against the landlord has been denied in such a case on the ground that the tenant was himself guilty of negligence contributing to the injury,80 and it would seem that, in the ordinary case, the tenant, as being in a position to know of the need of repairs, might well be found to be so guilty. Occasionally recovery by the tenant has been denied on the theory that, knowing of the need of repairs, he could have avoided the injury by making them himself.81

Mason v. Howes, 122 Mich. 329, 81 N. W. 1ll (semble); Barron v. Liedloff, 95 Minn. 474, 104 N. W. 289; Coleman v. Central Trust Co. of New York, 25 Misc. 295, 54 N. Y. Supp. 561; Edwards v. New York & H. R. Co., 98 N. Y. 248, 50 Am. Rep. 659 (dictum); Ehinger v. Bahl, 208 Pa. 250, 57 Atl. 572; Merchants' Cotton Press & Storage Co. v. Miller, 135 Tenn. 187, L. R. A. 1916P, 1137, 186 S. W. 87; Lowe v. O'Brien, 77 Wash. 677, 138 Pac. 295. See Green v. Eales, 2 Q. B. 225.

78. Collins v. Karatopsky, 36 Ark. 316; Anderson v. Robinson, 182 Ala. 615, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 330, Ann. Cas. 1915R, 829, 62 So. 512; Hamilton v. Feary, 8 Ind. App. 615, 52 Am. St. Rep. 485, 35 N. E. 48; Dice's Adm'r v. Zwei-gart's Adm'r, 161 Ky. 646, 171 S. W. 195; Tuttle v. Gilbert Mfg. Co., 145 Mass. 169, 13 N. E. 465; Kohnle v. Paxton, 268 Mo. 463, 188 S. W. 155; Dustin v. Curtis, 74 N. H. 266, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 504, 13 Ann. Cas. 169, 67 Atl. 220;

Frank v. Mandel, - N. Y. -, 76 App. Div. (N. Y.) 413, 78 N. Y. Supp. 85; Davis v. Smith, 26 R. I. 129, 66 L. R. A. 478, 106 Am. St. Rep. 691, 3 Ann. Cas. 832, 58 Atl. 630.

79. See Tuttle v. Gilbert Mfg. Co., 145 Mass. 169, 13 N. E. 465; Dustin v. Curtis, 74 N. H. 266, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 504, 13 Ann. Cas. 169, 67 Atl. 220; Pollock, Torts (6th Ed.), 512; 1 Tiffany, Landlord and Ten. Sec. 87d(10); Editorial notes in 16 Columbia Law Rev. at 593; 28 Harv. Law Rev. at p. 432. The contrary view is well presented in an editorial note in 1 Virginia Law Rev. at p. 228. 80. Martin v. Surman, 116 111. App. 282; Hanson v. Cruse, 155 Ind. 176, 57 N. E. 904; Cook v. Soule, 56 N. Y. 420; Walker v. Swayzee, 3 Abb. Prac. (N. Y.) 136; Cantrell v. Fowler, 32 S. C. 589, 10 S. E. 934; Reams v. Taylor, 31 Utah 288, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 436, 120 Am. St. Rep. 30, 11 Ann. Cas. 51, 87 Pac. 1089; McGinn v. French, 107 Wis. 54, 82 N. W. 724.

- Negligent making of repairs. Although not bound by the terms of the lease to make repairs, the landlord is liable if he undertakes to make them, and in so doing creates a condition which results in injury to the tenant.82

- Injuries to licensees. For injuries to persons other than the tenant, such as members of his family, his customers, or his guests, received by them while on the premises, the landlord is usually liable to the same extent as he is for injuries to the tenant himself, and no further.83 He is, accordingly, in the ordinary case, not liable for injuries caused by defects existing at the time of the lease,84 except as he may have failed to in81. Hendry v. Squier, 126 Ind. 19, 9 L. R. A. 798, 25 N. E. 830; Cantrell v. Fowler, 32 S. C. 589, 10 S. E. 934; See Parker v. Meadows, 86 Tenn. 181, 6 S. W. 49.

As to the effect of the action of the landlord in assuring the tenant that the repairs had been made, see Dempsey v. Hertzfield, 30 Ga. 866; Miller v. Sullivan, 77 Kan. 252, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 737, 15 Ann. Cas. 561, 94 Pac. 266.

82. Sparks v. Murray, 120 Ark. 17, 178 S. W. 909; Callaghan v. Loughran, 102 Cal. 476, 36 Pac. 835; Jefferson v. Jameson & Morse Co., 165 111. 138, 46 N. E. 272, rev'g 60 111. App. 587; Barman v. Spencer (Ind.), 49 N. E. 9; Rice v. Whitley, 115 Iowa 748, 87 N. W. 694; Mann v. Fuller, 63 Kan. 664, 66 Pac. 627; Gregor v. Cady, 82 Me. 131, 17 Am. St. Rep. 466, 19 Atl. 108; Gill v. Middleton, 105 Mass. 477, 7 Am. Rep. 548; Thomas v. Lane, 821 Mass. 447, L. R. A. 1916F, 1077, 109 N. E. 363; Slafter v. Siddall, 97 Minn. 291, 106 N. W. 308; Glenn v. Hill, 210 Mo. 291, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 494, 124 Am. St. Rep. 750, 109 S. W. 27; Rankin v. Elizabeth Kountze Real Estate Co., 100 Neb. 69, 158 N. W. 378; Horton v. Early, 39 Okla. 99, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 314, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 825, 134 Pac. 436; Tarnogwski v. Rzepski, 252 Pa. 507, 97 Atl. 697; Bancroft v. Godwin, 41 Wash. 253, 83 Pac. 189; Wertheimer v. Saunders, 95 Wis. 573, 37 L. R. A. 146, 70 N. W. 824.