other place than on the demised premises: (see the form 1 Con. Prec., Part III., Section I., No. V., clause 5, p. 452, 2nd edit.) In addition to this, it may also be prudent to stipulate that the lease of the furniture shall become determinable in case such furniture shall be taken in execution of any process against the goods of the lessee, as, in the absence of some provision of this kind, the landlord has no means, during the continuance of the term, of recovering any articles of the demised furniture in case they shall be taken in execution for the tenant's debt: (Ward v. Macaulay, 4 T. R. 489; Gordon v. Harper, 7 T. R. 9.) Nor, it seems, has the landlord any remedy against the lessee until the term has expired, unless some express stipulation or covenant to that effect be inserted in the lease. But where the lease is made determinable upon the lessee's removing and allowing such articles of furniture to be used elsewhere than on the demised premises, or in case of their being taken in execution, then the landlord will be entitled to determine the lease, and also to maintain trover for the recovery of his furniture: (Berry v. Heard, Cro. Car. 327; Smith v. Miller, 7 T. R. 475.)

Leases of public houses.]-If the lease to be granted is of a public-house, and the lessee is to be restricted to take his beer, wine, or spirits of the lessor, a stipulation to that effect will be necessary; for however common a practice it may be for brewers or vintners who grant leases of public-houses to require a covenant from the lessees to the above effect, they have no right whatever to insist upon its insertion where the agreement is only for granting a lease under the common and usual covenants, or unless it contains some stipulation or provision that the lease is to contain a clause or covenant to the above effect: (see the form 1 Con. Prec., Part III., Section II., No. V., clause B., in notis, p. 495, 2nd edit.)

Where the lease is to contain covenants for renewal.]—If the intended lease is to contain any covenant for renewal, the contract ought to be very explicit in this respect, and this will require the particular attention of the lessee's solicitor; the more particularly so, as covenants for renewal are construed strictly, and always more in favour of the lessor than of the lessee (Baynham v. Guy's Hospital, 3 Ves. 395; Moore v. Foley, 6 ib. 232); and hence, a covenant to renew a lease under the same covenants as were contained in the original lease, has been held satisfied by tender of a lease for the same term, at the like rent, and containing all the cove

May,

nants, except the covenant for renewal (Iggulden v. 7 East, 237); and the rule in this respect is the same in courts of equity as in courts of law: (Higgins v. Rose, 3 Bligh, 113.) If, therefore, the proposed lease is intended to contain a perpetual right of renewal, or any right to more than one single renewal, the contract should stipulate for those rights, which, whatever they are to be, should be distinctly defined (see a form of this kind, 1 Con. Prec., Part III, Section II., No. V., clause C., in notis, p. 499); and where the right of renewal is to be restricted, the extent of such restriction ought to be set out with equal clearness: (see the form of a proviso of the latter kind, ib., clause D., p. 500.)

Terms for letting a farm.]—The terms for letting a farm should be plain and explicit, and after setting out the parcels, the term to be granted, the amount of rent and time of payment, and the stipulations as to the payment of rates and taxes and repairs, should state particularly as to the mode in which the farm is to be cultivated by the tenant; and every act the latter is intended to covenant to perform, or abstain from doing, should be set down in the contract, with the terms or conditions under which the premises are to be taken, and the lessor should never rely on being able to insist upon having any clause or covenant inserted in the lease upon which the conditions or agreement for letting are silent, on account of such clause or covenant being usually inserted in the husbandry leases of that county or neighbourhood: (see the form of terms for letting a farm, I Con Prec., Part III., Section I., No. IV., pp. 448, 450, 2nd edit.)

Building leases.]-When a building lease is to be granted, every particular that is to be included in the lease should be specified in the agreement or terms upon which the lease is to be granted; otherwise, when the lease comes to be actually prepared, neither party will have a right to insist upon having any matter or thing inserted therein that the agreement is altogether silent upon, and that is not applicable to any lease of the kind granted under ordinary circumstances.

Distinction between leases and agreements for leases.]-It is a common practice to insert at the end of the instrument that it is intended to operate as an agreement for a lease only, and not as an actual lease. But this clause is far less important now than it was formerly, when questions were

continually arising as to whether written instruments relating to the letting of property were actual leases or mere agreements for leases, but which are now chiefly confined to instruments made previously to the statute 8 & 9 Vict. c. 106, by which it is enacted that a lease required by law to be in writing of any tenements or hereditaments made after the first day of October, 1845, shall be void at law, unless made by deed (sect. 3); still this will not prevent an instrument, although under seal, from being construed as an agreement where, from the terms in which it is expressed, it is evident the parties intended it should have that operation: (1 Hughes Pract. Sales, pp. 510, 511, 2nd edit.) It must also be kept in view that the above-mentioned enactment only mentions such leases as are required by law to be in writing, and does not affect such leases as by the second section of the Statute of Frauds were excepted out of the operation of the first section; viz., parol leases not exceeding three years from the making thereof, whereupon the rent reserved to the landlord shall amount to two-thirds of the value.

Formerly a common practice to rely upon a mere agreement only.]-It was not an uncommon practice formerly to rely merely upon the agreement for a lease expressing the terms upon which the property is to be held, either with or without a special agreement to execute a lease when called upon. This was chiefly done to evade the heavy amount of stamp duty which, until lately, was charged upon leases; but these duties having been considerably reduced by the act 13 & 14 Vict. c. 97, the practice of relying upon a simple agreement will daily become less frequent; nor is it one which ought often to be followed, as a lease has so decided an advantage over a mere agreement, as well in favour of the landlord as of the tenant. Under a mere agreement for a lease, the tenant having no legal estate, the landlord may eject him whenever he pleases by an action at law (Hamerton v. Stead, 5 B. & C. 478); whilst, on the other hand, the landlord, unless rent has been previously paid to him under such agreement, has no power of distress for rent subsequently becoming due to him (Mann v. Lovejoy, 1 Ry. & Moo. 355), his only remedy being by action for use and occupation: (Hegan v. Jackson, 2 Taunt. 148; Reynart v. Porter, 7 ib. 451.)

III. As ro COPYHOLDS.

If the property consists of lands of copyhold tenure, the lessee, before he accepts a lease, must take care to see that his lessor has procured a proper licence to demise from the lord of the manor of which the lands are holden; for, in the absence of a special custom, a copyholder cannot lease his lands for more than one year without the lord's licence, and any lease made by him exceeding that period will cause a forfeiture of his estate: (Fenny ex dem. Eastham v. Child, 2 Mau. & Selw. 255.) This licence must be granted by the lord himself, the steward, in the absence of a special custom, having no authority to confer a power of this nature: (Gilb. Ten. 333.) Nor can the lord himself confer a licence for a longer period than is commensurate with his own estate in the lands; consequently, a licence granted by a tenant for life will determine with his life estate: (Munifas v. Baker, 1 Keb. 25); but although such licence will be void as against the reversioners, yet, having been granted under the authority of the tenant for life, it will not entitle the former to enter upon the copyhold for a forfeiture (ib.): (see the form of licence to demise, 1 Con. Prec., Part III., No. VII., p. 460, 2nd edit.)

How licence may be obtained when the lord or lady of a manor are under legal disabilities.]—But although, generally speaking, none but the lord himself can grant a licence to demise, still, where any lord or lady of a manor is labouring under any legal disabilities, such as being a minor, idiot, lunatic, or feme covert, or beyond seas, the guardian, committee, husband, or attorney, as the case may be, of such lord or lady (but in case of a feme covert, not being a minor, idiot, or lunatic, or beyond the seas, with her consent in writing), may execute the instrument by which such consent is to be testified, in testimony of the consent of such lord or lady, which is to be deemed an execution by the lord or lady: (5 & 6 Vict. c. 108, s. 24.)

Lord cannot be compelled to grant a licence.]-The lord cannot be compelled to grant a licence to demise (Reg. v. Hale, 9 Ad. & Ell. 339) unless he has entered into an actual agreement to that effect; but in the latter case, equity would undoubtedly enforce a specific performance of such agreement: (Hungerford v. Austen, Nels. 49.)

Custom sometimes authorizes granting leases without a licence.]-In some manors, the custom authorizes the grant

ing of leases without licence for a longer period than a year, sometimes, indeed, for so long a period as a life, and forty years over: (Anon. Moo. 8, pl. 27; 1 Platt, Leases, 110.) In the manor of Highbury, in Middlesex, the custom warrants the granting of a lease for any term not exceeding twentyone years (Rawsthorne v. Bentley, 4 Bro. C. C. 415): and in the manors of Stepney and Hackney, in the same county, the copyholders are authorized to grant leases without licence for any term not exceeding twenty-one years and four months in possession, so that such leases be presented to the homage, and entered on the court rolls at the first or second general court after the making thereof: (Scriv. Cop. 544, 3rd edit.)

Lease without licence for more than one year, in the absence of some custom warranting it, will work a forfeiture.]-But in the absence of some custom, a lease without licence for more than one year, and in some manors even a lease for that short period, without the lord's licence (1 Prest. Abs. 202), will work a forfeiture of the estate; and it must be remembered that a forfeiture of this kind is one which a court of equity will refuse to relieve against.

Plans that have been resorted to in order to avoid a forfeiture.]-To evade the required licence without incurring a forfeiture has caused various devices to be resorted to. In one instance, a copyholder strove to attain this object by granting a lease for a year, excepting the last day, and so from year to year, excepting the last day of every year, as long as he lived; but all, it seems, he procured by his artifice, was the forfeiture of his estate; for it was held that it was a certain lease for two years with the exception of two days, and therefore, in effect, a lease for more than a year, Williams, J., at the same time quaintly observing that the lessor had made a snare for another, and had catched himself in the same: (Lutterell v. Westorn, 1 Bulstr. 215.) In another case, also, a copyholder made on the same day three distinct leases, leaving an interval of two days between the termination of the one and the commencement of the next succeeding lease, but this was considered a mere fraudulent attempt to evade the law, and therefore caused a forfeiture of the copyhold: (Mathews v. Whetton, Cro. Car. 233.) And it has also been decided that if, under a custom to lease for three years, a copyholder leases for three years, and so from three years to three years, for nine years, it will work a forfeiture, for it is a lease for six years at the least: (Wilcock's case, 2 Danv. Abr. pl. 2.)