In England the lease or other instrument creating an estate for life or years quite frequently provides that the tenant shall be "without impeachment of waste," or uses equivalent language, and the effect of such a provision is that the tenant can, at law, commit waste to the same extent as a tenant in fee simple, as by cutting timber or digging minerals for the purpose of sale,4 though he will in equity be restrained from unreasonable destruction of the property, to the injury of those entitled to the inheritance.5 Such a general provision as to waste is probably but rarely to be found in this country, but occasionally an instrument of lease contains provisions allowing specific acts which, in the absence of such provision, would constitute waste, such as, for instance, the making of alterations in buildings on the premises.

The statute of Marlbridge,6 provided that "fermors" (leaseholders) should not do waste "without special license had by writing of covenant making mention that they may do it," and it is said by Coke7 that such special license "ought to be by deed, for all waste tends to the disinheritance of the lessor, and therefore no man can claim to be dispunishable of waste without deed," and it has been asserted in this Country that

3a. Delano v. Smith, 206 Mass. 365, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 474, 92 N. E. 500. See Hersey v. Chapin, 162 Mass. 176, 38 N. E. 442; and 1 Tiffany, Landld. & Ten. p. 798.

4. Bewes, Waste, 145; Bowles' Case, 11 Coke, 79. See Cundiff v. Shacklefurd, 150 Ky. 579, 150 S. W. 670.

5. Post Sec. 289.

6. 52 Hen. 3, c. 23 Sec. 2 (A. D. 1267).

7. 2 Co. Inst. 146.