1 Tiffany, Landlord & Ten., Sec. 182n(2).

13. Leonard v. Armstrong, 73 Mich. 577, 41 N. W. 695; Petz v. Voight Brewery Co., 116 Mich. 418, 72 Am. St. Rep. 531, 74 N. W. 651.

14. Tallman v. Murphy, 120 N. Y. 345, 24 N. E. 716; Sully v. Schmltt, 147 N. Y. 248, 49 Am. St. Rep. 659, 41 N. E. 514.

- Breach of covenant. The question whether the breach of a particular covenant or stipulation by the landlord is a defense to the claim for rent, is properly a question merely whether the stipulation for the payment of rent and that by the landlord are in the particular case to be construed as dependent or independent. The question has more frequently arisen in connection or the sale of liquor in violation of law, there can be no recovery of rent.17a

14a. So, in a recent case it was held that a refusal to allow the tenant to obtain water, in an emergency, from a neighboring building, constituted an eviction relieving him from rent. Boston Veterinary Hospital v. Kiley, 219 Mass. 533, 107 N. E. 426.

14b. Bass v. Rollins, 63 Minn. 226, 65 N. W. 348; Minneapolis Co-operative Co. v. Williamson,

51 Minn. 53, 38 Am. St. Rep. 473,

52 N. W. 986; Riley v. Pettis County, 96 Mo. 318, 9 S. W. 906; Lawrence v. Burrell, 17 Abb. N. Cas. 312; Filkins v. Steele, 124

Iowa, 742, 100 N. W. 851; Harmony Co. v. Rauch. 64 I11. App. 386; Mcsorley v. Allen, 36 Pa. Super. Ct. 271; Buchanan v. Orange. 118 Va. 511, 88 S. E. 52.

14c. Tallman v. Murphy, 120 N. Y. 345, 24 N. E. 716; Jackson v. Paterno, 58 Misc. 201, 108 N. Y. Supp. 1073, 128 N. Y. App. Div. 474, 112 N. Y. Supp. 924; Pakas v. Rawle, 152 N. Y. Supp. 965; O'hanlon v. Grubb, 38 App. D. C. 1213, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1213. Compare Martens v. Sloane. 132 N. Y. App. Div. 114, 116 N. Y. Supp. 512.

14d. Ante, Sec. 58(b).

- Illegality of business. If a lease is knowingly made for the purpose of carrying on an illegal business on the premises, such as prostitution, gambling,

15. Surplice v. Farnsworth, 7 Man. & G. 576; Central Appalachian Co. v. Buchanan, 73 Fed. 1006; Young v. Berman, 96 Ark. 78, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 977, 131 S. W. 62; Lewis & Co. v. Chis-holm, 68 Ga. 40; Arnold v. Krig-baum, 169 Cal. 143, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 370, 146 Pac. 423; Rubens v. Hill, 213 I11. 523, 72 N. E. 1127; Long v. Gieret, 57 Minn. 278, 59 N. W. 194; Warren v. Hodges, 137 Minn. 389, 163 N. W. 739; Meredith Mechanic Ass'n v. American Twist Drill Co., 67 N. H. 450, 39 Atl. 330; Stewart v. Childs Co., 86 N. J. L. 648, L. R. A. 1915C, 649, 92 Atl. 392; Watters v. Smaw, 32 N. C. (10 Ind. Law) 292; Partridge v. Dykins, 28 Okla. 54, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 984, 113 Pac. 928; Prescott v. Otter-statter, 85 Pa. 534; Smith v. Wiley, 60 Tenn. (1 Baxt.) 418; Arbenz v. Exley, Watkins & Co., 52 W. Va. 476, 61 L. R. A. 957,

44 S. E. 149

In Wise v. Sparks, - Ala. -, 73 So. 394, whether a contract to pay rent and one to make repairs were dependent was regarded as a question for the jury.

16. Bissell v. Lloyd, 100 I11. 214; Marks v. Chapman, 135 Iowa, 320, 112 N. W. 817; Hart-hill v. Cooke's Ex'r, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 1524, 43 S. W. 705; Pierce v. Joldersma, 91 Mich. 463, 51 N. W. 1116; Nelson v. Eichoff, Okla. -, 158 Pac. 370 (semble) ; Auer v. Vahl, 129 Wis. 635, 109 N. W. 529. See Taylor v. Finne-gan ,189 Mass. 568, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 973, 76 N. E. 203; Tiffany, Landlord & Ten. Sec. 182r.

17. Bass v. Rollins, 63 Minn. 226, 65 N. W. 348; Filkins v. Steele, 124 Iowa, 742, 100 N. W. 851; Rogers v. Babcock, 139 Mich. 94, 102 N. W. 636; Harmony Co. v. Ranch, 64 I11. App.

Not infrequently, in recent years, a question has arisen as to the effect, upon the liability for rent, of the fact that the lease was made to enable the lessee to use the property for the sale of intoxicating liquors, and such use became invalid, after the making of the lease, by reason of the adoption of a prohibitory law. The cases are ordinarily to the effect that legislation of the character referred to did not terminate the tenancy or relieve from liability for the full amount of the stipulated rent,17b the decision in a number of these cases being based on the theory that there was in the instrument of lease no reference to the liquor business which called for construction as excluding the sale on the premises of articles other than liquors, and that consequently the lessee could still utilize the premises.17c In a few cases a contrary

386; Mcsorley v. Allen, 36 Pa. Super. Ct. 271. See ante, this section, note 14a.

17a. Mitchell v. Campbell, I11 Miss. 806, 72 So. 231; Sherman v. Wilder, 106 Mass. 537; Berni v. Boyer, 90 Minn. 469, 97 N. W. 121. And cases cited, 1 Tiffany, Landlord & Ten. Sec. 40; editorial note 26 Harv. Law Rev. 181.

17b. Lawrence v. White, 131 Ga. 840, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 966, 63 S. E. 631; Goodrum Tobacco Co. v. Potts-thompson Liquor Co., 133 Ga. 776, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 498, 66 S. E. 1081; Barghman v. Port-man, 12 Ky. L. Rep. 342, 14 S. W. 342; Kerley v. Mayer, 10 Misc Rep. 718, 31 N. Y. Supp. 818, judgment aff'd., 155 N. Y. 636, 49 N. E. 1099; Houston Ice & Brewing Co. v. Keenan, 99 Tex. 79, 88 S. W. 197; Hecht v. Acme Coal Co., 19 Wyo. 18, 113 Pac. 788, 117

Pac. 132, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 773, A. & E. Ann. Cas. 1913E, 258. See the excellent note on the subject, by Professor R. W. Aigler, in 16 Mich. Law Rev. 534.

17c. O'byrne v. Henley, 161 Ala. 620, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 496, 50 So. 83; Harper v. Young, 123 Ark. 162, 184 S. W. 447; Shreve-port Ice & Brew. Co. v. Mandel, 128 La. 314, 54 So. 831; San Antonio Co. v. Brents, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 443, 88 S. W. 368; Warm Springs Co. v. Salt Lake City, - Utah, -, 165 Pac. 788; Hayton v. Seattle Brewing & Malting Co., 66 Wash. 248, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 432, 119 Pac. 739.

So the premises being still available for other purposes, the fact that an ordinance rendered them practically unavailable for the purpose of a garage, for which the lease was taken, was regarded view, that the change in the law relieved the lessee from liability for rent, was asserted,17d this view being sometimes based, however, on the fact that by the terms of the lease the tenant was precluded from making any use of the premises except for the sale of intoxicants.17e In so far as these latter cases assume that a statement in the lease that the premises are to be used for a particular purpose precludes their use for another purpose, they in effect regard such a statement, presumably, as a covenant or condition against such user, since otherwise the statement as to user would seem to be inoperative.

The inability to obtain or renew a license for the sale of intoxicating liquors has been regarded as no defense to the claim for rent, although the lease was taken for the purpose of conducting that particular business on the premises.17f