R. P. - 10

- Parts in landlord's control. If the owner of a building, while leasing different parts thereof to differFoster, 16S N. Car. 329, 50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 286, 79 S. E. 614; Water-house v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co., 12 S. Dak. 397, 48 L. R. A. 157, 81 N. W. 725.

92. Grady v. Wolsner, 46 Ala. 381, 7 Am. Rep. 593; House v. Metcalf, 27 Conn. 631; Lufkin v. Zane, 157 Mass. 117, 17 L. R. A. 251, 34 Am. St. Rep. 262, 31 N. E. 757; Fleischner v. Citizens Real Estate Inv. Co., 25 Ore. 119, 33 Pac. 174, Wunder v. McLean 134, Pa. 334, 19 Am. St. Rep. 702, 19 Atl. 749.

93. Simms v. Kennedy, - Fla. -, 76 So. 739; City of Lewiston v. Isaman, 19 Idaho 653, 115 Pac. 494; Johnson v. McMillan, 69 Mich. 36, 36 N. W. 803; Fehlhauer v. St. Louis, 178 Mo. 635, 77 S. W. 843; Wolf v. Kilpatrick, 101 N. Y. 146, 54 Am. Rep. 672, 4 N. E. 188; Mylander v. Beimschla, 102 Md. 689, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 316, 62 Atl. 1038; Shindelbeck v. Moon, 32 Ohio St. 264, 30 Am. Rep. 584; Adams v. Fletcher, 17 R. 1. 137,

33 Am. St. Rep. 859, 20 Atl. 263.

94. Baker v. Allen, 66 Ark. 271, 74 Am. St. Rep. 93, 50 S. W. 511; Kalis v. Shattuck, 69 Cal. 593, 58 Am. Rep. 568, 11 Pac. 346; Edgar v. Walker, 106 Ga. 454, 32 S. E. 582; Jansen v. Varnum, 89 111. 100; Metropolitan Sav. Bank v. Manion, 87 Md. 68, 39 Atl. 90; Lufkin v. Zane, 157 Mass. 117, 17 L. R. A. 251, 34 Am. St. Rep. 262, 31 N. E. 757; Little Schuylkill* Navigation, Railroad & Coal Co. v. Richards' Adm'r, 57 Pa. St. 142, 98 Am. Dec. 209; Louisville & N. Terminal Co. v. Jacobs, 109 Tenn. 727, 61 L. R. A. 188, 72 S. W. 954.

95. Boyce v. Tallerman, 183 111. 115, 55 N. E. 703; Szathmary v. Adams, 166 Mass. 145, 44 N. E. 124; Frischberg v. Hurter, 173 Mass. 22, 52 N. E. 1086; Nelson v. Liverpool Brewery Co., 2 C. P. Div. 311.

96. See 1 Tiffany, Landlord & Tenant, Sec. 107.

Tenants, retains the control of parts of the building, such as entries and stairways, for use by the various tenants and the persons who may have occasion to visit the tenants, he is bound to exercise reasonable diligence to keep in proper repair the parts so under his control, and is liable for a failure in that regard to all persons rightfully thereon.97

The landlord is also liable to the tenant, as to any other person rightfully on the premises, for damage caused by his neglect to remedy defects in, or by his improper management of, appliances of which he retains control, such as water pipes,97a heating apparatus,97b or elevators.97c As to parts of the building which are not open to the use of tenants, such as the roof of an apartment or office building, the landlord must exercise diligence to prevent any such dangerous condition therein as to cause damage to a tenant,97d and he is under a like duty as regards parts of the building which he himself occupies.97e By the weight of authority, while the owner of the building owes to a tenant the duty not to permit a part of the building in his own control, such as a roof or wall, to be a source of danger to a tenant, he owes him no duty to keep such part in repair for the purpose of protecting him from injury by an external agency, such as the weather.97f

97. Mudd v. Gray, - Ala. -, 75 So. 468; Shoninger Co. v. Mann, 219 111. 242, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1097, 76 N. E. 354; Hinthorn v. Benfer, 90 Kan. 731, L. R. A. 1915 B, 98, 136 Pac. 247; Sawyer v. McGillicuddy, 81 Me. 318, 3 L. R. A. 458, 10 Am. St. Rep. 17 Atl. 124; Coupe v. Platt, 172 Mass. 458, 70 Am. St. Rep. 293, 52 N. E. 526; Williams v. Dickson, 122 Minn. 49, 141 N. W. 849; Gill-von v. Reilly, 50 N. J. L. 26, 11 Atl. 481; Peil v. Reinhart, 127 N. Y. 381, 12 L. R. A. 843, 27 N. E. 1077; English v. Thomas, 48 Okla. 247, 149 Pac. 906; Wilber v. Follansbee, 97 Wis. 577, 72 N. W. 741, 73 N. W. 559; Miller v. Hancock, (1893) 2 Q. B. 177.

97a. Pike v. Brittan, 71 Cal. 159, 60 Am. Rep. 527, 11 Pac. 890; Indianapolis Abbatoir Co. v. Tem-perly, 159 Ind. 651, 95 Am. St. Rep. 330, 64 N. E. 906; (gas pipe). Priest v. Nichols, 116 Mass. 401; Sheridan v. Forsee, 106 Mo. App.

495, 81 S. W. 494; Eugene C. Lewis Co. v. Metropolitan Realty Co., 112 N. Y. App. Div. 385, 98 N. Y. Supp. 391, Id. 189 N. Y. 534, 82 N. E. 1126; Rucker v. Sheeley Co. v. Willey, 174 N. C. 42, 93 S. E. 379; Kecoughtan Lodge No. 29 K. of P. v. Steiner & Kaufman, 106 Va. 589, 10 Ann. Cas. 256, 56 S. E. 569; James Sheehan & Co. v. Barberis, 41 Wash. 671, 84 Pac. 607.

97b. McNichol v. Malcolm, 39 Can. Sup. Ct. 265; Bryant v. Carr, 52 Misc. 155, 101 N. Y. Supp. 646; Railton v. Taylor, 20 R. I. 279, 39 L. R. A. 246, 38 Atl. 980.

97c. Springer v. Ford, 189 111. 430, 52 L. R. A. 930, 82 Am. St. Rep. 464; 59 N. E. 953; Stewart v. Harvard College, 12 Allen 58; Waters v. Cotting, 227 Mass. 405, 116 N. E. 824; Griffen v. Manice, 166 N. Y. 188, 52 L. R. A. 992, 82 Am. St. Rep. 630, 59 N. E. 925; Ellis v. Waldron, 19 R. I. 369, 33 Atl. 869.

- Liability of tenant. The tenant is ordinarily liable for injuries to persons, resulting from defects of dangerous conditions existing in connection with the premises, to the same extent as is any occupant of land. That is, he is bound to exercise reasonable diligence to prevent injury to persons who come on the land by his express or implied invitation98 as he is to prevent

97d. Payne v. Irvin, 144 111. 482, 33 N. E. 756, aff'g 44 111. App. 105; Dalton v. Gibson, 192 Mass. 1, 116 Am. St. Rep. 218, 77 N. E. 1035; Yorra v. Lynch, 226 Mass. 153, 115 N. E. 238; Bold v. O'Brien, 12 Daly (N. Y.) 160, 161; Quigley v. H. W. Johns Mfg. Co., 26 N. Y. App. Div. 434, 50 N. Y. Supp. 98.

97e. Buckley v. Cunningham, 103 Ala. 449, 49 Am. St. Rep. 42, 15 So. 826; Glickauf v. Maurer, 75 111. 289, 20 Am. Rep. 238; Krueger v. Ferrant, 29 Minn. 385, 43 Am. Rep. 223, 13 N. W. 158; Stapen-horst v. American Mfg. Co., 36 N. Y. Super. Ct. 392, 15 Abb. Prac. (N. S.) 355, 46 How. Prac. 510; Railton v. Taylor, 20 R. I. 279, 39 L. R. A. 246, 38 Atl. 980.

97f. Dalton v. Gibson, 192 Mass. 1, 116 Am. St. Rep. 218, 77 N. E. 1035; Jones v. Millsaps, 71 Miss. 10, 23 L. R. A. 155, 14 So. 440; Krueger v. Ferrant, 29 Minn. 385,

43 Am. Rep. 223, 13 N. W. 158; Doupe v. Genin, 45 N. Y. 119, 6 Am. Rep. 47; Hanley v. Banks, 6 Okla. 79, 51 Pac. 664; Betcher v. Hagell, 38 Nova Scotia 517; 1 Wms. Saund. 322, note to Pom-fret v. Ricroft, Contra, Toole v. Beckett, 67 Me. 544, 24 Am. Rep. 54; Rehbach v. Vogt, 126 111. App. 613; And see the various New York cases discussed, 1 Tiffany, Landlord & Ten. at p. 626.

That the landlord is liable for injuries caused by allowing water to collect on the roof, see Knee-land v. Beare, 11 N. D. 233, 91 N. W. 56; Charlow v. Blankenship, SO W. Va. 200, L. R. A. 1917D 1149, 92 S. E. 318; Hargroves, Aronson & Co. v. Hartopp (1905) 1 K. B. 472.

98. King v. Cooney-Eckstein Co., 66 Fla. 246, Ann. Cas. 1916C 163, 63 So. 659; City of Chicago v. O'Brennan, 65 111. 160; Mellen v.

Sec. 52. Reservation of rent

A lease creating an estate for years, or lesser estate, is perfectly valid without any reservation of rent as a compensation for the rights of possession and enjoyment, but rent is such a usual incident thereto that it is proper to mention it here, though a full consideration of the subject of rent is reserved for another part of the work.1-3 The obligation to pay rent, imposed by the terms of the lease, is, as a general rule, terminated, as will be seen later, only by the termination of the estate created by the lease, and the obligation is not terminated by the fact that the buildings on the land demised are accidentally destroyed, as by fire.