Geo. II. c. 19. the lodger to the immediate tenant, the landlord is prohibited from proceeding to levy a distress upon the goods of such lodger. If the tenant fraudulently Distress unremoves his goods from the premises, the landlord der the 11 may, within thirty days, follow and distrain the goods of such tenant (but not those of any other person), unless they have been previously sold to a bonâ fide purchaser.1 Under the Statute of Limitations, 3 & 4 Wm. IV. Arrears of rent. IV. c. 42. c. 27,2 no arrears of rent can be recovered but within 3 & 4 Wm. six years next after the same have become due, or IV. c. 27. next after an acknowledgment of the same in writing given to the person entitled thereto, or his agent, signed by the person by whom the same was payable, or his agent. This statute applies to every case where the rent has been reserved by a parol, or by a written, lease. But if the lease has been made by deed, the 3 & 4 Wm. lessor is, under another Statute of Limitations,3 passed in the same year, in a more favorable position, so far as regards the time within which he may bring his action. For this statute enacts that all actions of debt for rent upon an indenture (that is, a deed) of demise shall be commenced within twenty years after the cause of such action, but not after; this time being, however, extended 5 if the person entitled to bring the action is an infant, a married woman, a lunatic, or beyond seas; or if any acknowledgment has been made either by writing signed by the party liable by virtue of such indenture or his agent, or by payment or part satisfaction on account of any principal or interest then due. Notwithstanding the 1 11 Geo. II. c. 19, §§ 1, 2. 3 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 42. 4 S. 3. 7 As to the conflicting Statutes, 142, note (I). 6 2 S. 42. See Paget v. Foley, 2 Bing. N. C. 679. Lessee's lia rent. Statutes of Limitation, it is settled that so long as the relation of landlord and tenant exists as a legal relation, the right to rent is not barred by non-payment, for however long a period, although the amount to be recovered is, in every case, limited to six years' rent.1 The lessee is bound to pay rent, although the bility to pay lessor may have failed to do repairs which he has covenanted to do.2 This obligation continues, both at law and in equity, even if the premises are burnt down, unless there is some stipulation to the contrary, for in the absence of agreement the lessor is not bound to rebuild premises destroyed by fire, nor will such an agreement be implied from a covenant on his part that the lessee shall have quiet enjoyment of the premises. At one time it appears to have been doubted whether the lessor could claim payment of rent without rebuilding the premises, if he had insured them and received the insurance money; 5 but it is now well settled that he can. But under S. 83 of Metropolitan the Metropolitan Building Act, any person interested Building Act. in any house or premises which may have been burnt down can require the directors of the office in the which the same had been insured to lay out the insurance money in rebuilding them, and it has been decided that the application of this section of the act is general, and not limited to the metropolis.8 Payment of By the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35,9 the lessee is bound in 1 Archbold v. Scully, 9 H. L. C. 360. 2 Surplice v. Farnsworth, 7 Man. & Gr. 576. 3 Baker v. Holtzappfel, 4 Taunt. 45; Holtzappfel v. Baker, 18 Ves. 115; Hare v. Groves, Anstr. 687; Lofft v. Dennis, 1 E. & E. 474. 4 Bayne v. Walker, 3 Dow, 233; Brown v. Quilter, Amb. 619. 5 Brown v. Quilter, Amb. 619. 6 Leeds v. Cheetham, 1 Sim. 146. 8 Ex parte Gorely, 34 L. J. (Bankr.) 1. 7 14 Geo. III. c. 78. 9 S. 73. 5 & 6 Vict. c. the first instance to pay income tax, and then to taxes and deduct it from his rent; and no bargain between rates. the lessor and lessee to the contrary is to have any 35. binding effect. As to other taxes, the lessee, in the absence of any agreement, is bound to pay all personal charges in respect of the land, but not taxes on the land itself. He is therefore, in general, bound to pay poor, watching, water, highway, and county rates, but not land tax, sewer's rates, paving rate, or tithe rent-charge, and if he does pay them he is entitled to deduct them from his rent, but only to the amount which the lessor would be bound to pay on his rent reserved;1 and a tenant who has paid his full rent without deducting the amount which he has paid on account of taxes which the landlord ought ultimately to bear cannot recover it back.2 A tenant for years is, in the absence of covenant, Repairs. bound to keep the premises which he occupies wind and water tight, but not to do substantial repairs, and it would seem to follow that if he chooses to do them he cannot recover the amount so spent from his landlord. He is also, it would seem, liable for permissive waste, and is consequently entitled, in the absence of any proviso to the contrary, to take reasonable "estovers" or "botes," that is, to cut wood Estovers. for fuel and for repairs, and to cut underwood and lop pollards. If he has land of his own adjoining that of Keeping his lessor it is his duty to keep the boundaries between boundaries such lands distinct, and if he fails to do so he must either restore the lessor's land specifically or substi 1 Andrew v. Hancock, 1 Brod. & B. 37. 2 Andrew v. Hancock, 1 Brod. & B. 37. See Fuller v. Abbott, 4 Taunt. 105. 8 Auworth v. Johnson, 5 C. & P. 239; Leach v. Thomas, 7 C. & P. 327. 4 Harnett v. Maitland, 16 Mee. & W. 257; Yellowly v. Gower, 11 Exch. 274, 294; but see Torriano v. Young, 6 C. & P. 8. distinct. Waste. tute land of equal value; or, if he has suffered the boundaries to become confused, so that the lessor cannot tell to what he is entitled, must make good the loss to the lessor out of what may be considered as the common fund.2 The lessor is not bound to keep the demised premises in repair unless he has expressly agreed to do so, but it is probable that, if he has, the lessee could recover from him any money which he (the lessee) has expended on repairs, even though he had previously paid his rent to the lessor without claiming any deduction on that account. But a lessor covenanting to repair must have had notice that repairs are necessary, in order to render him liable to an action for breach of his covenant.4 5 A lessee is under an implied covenant to cultivate his land in a husbandlike manner and according to the custom of the country in which it is situate. He is not entitled to commit "waste," which has been defined as a spoil or destruction in houses, gardens, trees, or other corporeal hereditaments, to the disinheritance of him that has the reversion or remainder.7 He may not, therefore, pull down houses, cut timber, open mines, dig for minerals, or alter the nature of the property demised, as by converting arable land into woodland, or meadow or pasture land into arable. A tenant for years who did any of these things might formerly, under the Statute of Gloucester,8 have a writ of waste brought against him by his lessor, the result being that the place wasted was forfeited, and 1 Attorney-General v. Fullerton, 2 Ves. & B. 263. 2 Attorney-General v. Stephens, 6 De G., M. & G. 111. 3 Gott v. Gandy, 2 E. & B. 845. 4 Makin v. Wilkinson, L. R. 6 Ex. 25. 5 Horsefall v. Mather, Holt, N. P. C. 7, 9; Powley v. Walker, 5 T. R. 373. Legh v. Hewitt, 4 East, 154. 8 6 Edw. I. c. 5. 7 1 Inst. § 67. the tenant liable moreover to pay treble the amount of the damage which he had committed. The writ of waste has now been abolished, but a lessor may bring an action at law and recover damages against a lessee committing waste. He may also obtain from the Court of Chancery, or from the Court of Law in which he has brought, or is bringing, an action for waste, an injunction restraining the lessee from any repetition or continuance of waste. On the other hand, the lessee has the benefit of the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 25, already referred to as having been substituted for the former law relating to emblements. Questions occasionally arise between the lessor and Fixtures. the lessee as to the right of the latter to remove fixtures put up by him during his term. Fixtures include any thing annexed to the freehold, that is, fastened to or connected with it; mere juxtaposition or laying an object, however heavy, on the freehold not amounting to annexation. According to the older law any thing once annexed to the soil became part of it, and could only be removed by the owner of the soil, but exceptions to this rule have been gradually established in favor of the persons who may have put up fixtures, or their representatives. tures. The first exception appears to have been made in Trade fixthe case of fixtures put up by a tenant for years for the purposes of his trade. Thus, it was held in an old case that a soapboiler was entitled to remove vats, &c., which he had put up for the purposes of his trade, and in a later case," where a lessee had erected buildings during his term for the purposes of his trade, it was held that he might lawfully remove 1 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 27, § 36. 32 Smith, L. C. 170. 5 Penton v. Robart, 2 East, 88. 2 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125, §§ 79, 82. 4 Poole's Case, Salk. 367. |