One taking a lease of property stands in the position of a purchaser, who can and is bound to inspect the property, and is consequently subject to the rule of caveat emptor. It results that there is no implied warranty by the lessor as to the condition of the premises, and the lessee cannot ordinarily complain that they were not, at the beginning of the tenancy, in a tenantable condition, or were not adapted for the purposes for which they were leased.61f

61c. Hammond v. Jones, 41 Ind. App. 32, 83 N. E. 257.

61d. King v. Reynolds, 67 Ala. 229, 42 Am. Rep. 107; Hodges v. Fries, 34 Fla. 63, 15 So. 682; Ber-rington v. Casey, 78 111. 317; Lou-fer v. Stottlemyer, 16 Ind. App. 221, 44 N. E. 1008; Adair v. Bogle, 20 Iowa 238; Trull v. Granger, 8 N. Y. 115; Liebeman v. Graf Realty Holding Co., 174 N. Y. App. Div. 774, 161 N. Y. Supp. 567; Steel v. Frick, 56 Pa. St. 172 (semble).

61e. Berrington v. Casey, 78 111. 317; Grace v. Haas, 20 La. Ann. 73; Riley v. Hale, 158 Mass.

240, 33 N. E. 491; Albey v. Wein-gart, 71 N. J. L. 92, 58 Atl. 87; Trull v. Granger, 8 N. Y. 115; Edeshimer v. Quackenbush, 68 Hun (N. Y.) 427, 23 N. Y. Supp. 75; McFarland v. Owens (Tex. Civ. App.) 64 S. W. 229. In Clark v. Butt, 26 Ind. 236, such action on the part of the lessor's administrator was regarded as a breach of a covenant that the lessee should "have full and peaceable possession for said term."

61f. Hart v. Windsor, 12 Mees. & W. 68; Little Rock Ice Co. v. Consumers' Ice Co., 114 Ark. 532,

In England an exception has been made in the case of the demise of a furnished house, it being held that a condition is implied in that case that the house shall be fit for immediate habitation,62 but this exception to the general rule has been questioned, and has not generally been recognized in this country.63 The freedom of the lessor from responsibility for the condition of the premises at the time of the letting does not extend to cases where the premises contain some hidden defect or defects, or are infected with some noxious disease, rendering them dangerous or uninhabitable, and of which dangerous element or defects the landlord knew, but which were not apparent to the tenant, and were unknown to him.64

170 S. W. 241; Davidson v. Fischer, 11 Colo. 583, 7 Am. St. Rep. 267, 19 Pac. 652; Valin v. Jewell, 88 Conn. 151, L. R. A. 1915B 324, 90 Atl. 36; Lucas v. Coulter, 104 Ind. 81, 3 N. E. 622; Boyer v. Commercial Bldg. Inv. Co., 110 Iowa 491, 81 N. W. 720; Cowen v. Sunderland, 145 Mass. 363, 1 Am. St. Rep. 469, 14 N. E. 117; Smith v. State, 92 Md. 518, 51 L. R. A. 772, 48 Atl. 92; York v. Steward, 21 Mont. 515, 43 L. R. A. 125. 55 Pac. 29; Towne v. Thompson, 68 N. H. 317, 46 L. R. A. 748, 44 Atl. 492; Franklin v. Brown, 118 N. Y. 110, 6 L. R. A. 770, 16 Am. St. Rep. 744, 23 N. E. 126; Gaither v. Hascall-Richards Steam Generator Co., 121 N. C. 384, 28 S. E. 546; Enterprise Seed Co. v. Moore, 51 Okla. 477, 151 Pac. 867; Kelly v. Miller, 249 Pa. 314, 94 Atl. 1055; Clifton v. Montague, 40 W. Va. 207, 33 L. R. A. 449, 52 Am. St. Rep. 872, 21 S. E. 858; Aner v. Vahl, 129 Wis. 635, 109 N. W. 529.

62. Wilson v. Finch, Hatton, 2 Exch. Div. 336; Bunn v. Harrison, 3 Times Law Rep. 146. The exception has been recognized by the highest court in one state. Ingalls v. Hobbs, 156 Mass. 348, 16 L. R. A. 51, 32 Am. St. Rep. 460 31 N. E. 286, and by an intermediate court in another. Morgen than v. Ehrich, 77 N. Y. Misc. 139, 136 N. Y. Supp. 140. In Davey v. Christoff, 36 Ont. Law Rev. 123, the exception was extended to the lease of a moving picture theatre with its equipment, which turned out to be insufficiently heated.

63. Fisher v. Lighthall, 15 D. C. (4 Mackey) 82, 54 Am. Rep. 258; Davis v. George, 67 N. II. 393, 39 Atl. 979; Murray v. Albert-son, 50 N. J. L. 167, 7 Am. St. Rep. 787; 13 Atl. 394; Franklin v. Brown, 118 N. Y. 110, 6 L. R. A. 770, 16 Am. St. Rep. 744, 23 N. E. 126. The doctrine of the English cases is discussed in 1 Tiffany, Landlord & Ten. Sec. 86.

- (b) Mode of use by tenant. The tenant of premises is in the position not only of a purchaser, but also of a bailee thereof, and he must accordingly use them in such a way as not substantially to injure them, and must return them at the end of the term in such condition as they were in when the tenancy commenced, allowance being made for ordinary wear and tear incident to the use contemplated in the making of the lease. Any substantial injury done by him to the property demised, as by cultivating the ground in an improper manner, by destroying trees or buildings thereon, constitutes waste, which may frequently be restrained by injunction, and for which the tenant is liable in damages. The question of what constitutes waste is,

64. Finney v. Steele, 148 Ala. 197, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 977, 12 Am. Cas. 510, 41 So. 476: Gallagher v. Button, 73 Conn. 172, 46 Atl. 819; Davidson v. Fischer, 11 Colo. 583, 7 Am. St. Rep. 267, 19 Pac. 652; Sunasack v. Morey, 196 111. 569, 63 N. E. 1039; Moore v. Parker, 63 Kan. 52, 53 L. R. A. 778, 64 Pac. 975; Coke v. Gut-kese, 80 Ky. 598, 4 Ky. L. Rep. 545, 44 Am. Rep. 499; Cowen v. Sunderland, 145 Mass. 363, 1 Am. St. Rep. 469, 14 N. E. 117; Rhoades v. Seidel, 139 Mich. 608, 102 N. W. 1025; Cesar v. Karutz, 60 N. Y. 229, 19 Am. Rep. 164; White-ley v. McLaughlin, 183 Mo. 160, 66 L. R. A. 484, 81 S. W. 1094; Wilcox v. Hines, 100 Tenn. 538, 41 L. R. A. 278, 66 Am. St. Rep. 770, 46 S. W. 297.

That the lessor is under no obligation to discover defects, in order to be able to inform the lessee thereof, see Howell v. Schneider, 24 App. D. C. 532, Davis v. Manning, 98 Neb. 707, 154 N. W. 239; Andonique v. Carmen, 151 Ky. 249, 151 S. W. 921; Ames v. Brandvold, 119 Minn. 521, 138 N. W. 786; Clark v. Sharpe, 76 N. H. 446, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 47, 83 Atl. 1090; Whitmore v. Orono Pulp & Paper Co., 91 Me. 297, 40 L. R. A. 377, 64 Am. St. Rep. 229, 39 Atl. 1032; Shinkle, Wilson & Kreis Co. v. Birney & Seymour, 68 Ohio St. 328, 67 N. E. 715; Howard v. Washington Water Power Co., 75 Wash. 255. 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 578, 134 Pac. 927.