property-tax.

Sometimes there is an express covenant by the landlord to pay the land-tax (p).

If the lessee covenants to pay "all rates, taxes, and assessments," these include the land-tax; for when taxes are generally mentioned, they must be understood to signify parliamentary taxes, if the subjectmatter will suffer it, and the lessee would consequently be charged with the payment of all land-taxes, even those imposed by act of Parliament, long after the commencement of the lease, notwithstanding the word "parliament" was not expressed in the covenant (9). In Bradbury v. Wright (r), the tenant covenanted to pay the rent "without any deduction, defalcation, or abatement, for or in any respect whatsoever." Upon this covenant he was held liable to pay the land-tax. A sewer's rate not being directly imposed, i.e., fixed and assessed by act of Parliament, is not a parliamentary tax (8). So an improvement rate made by commissioners under a local act is not parochial or parliamentary (t). But it would seem that a county rate is a parochial tax (u). No doubt in Waller v. Andrews (e), where the tenant, by the agreement, was to pay "all outgoings whatsoever, rates, taxes, scots, &c., parliamentary and parochial," it was held that an extraordinary assessment, made by the commissioners upon the lands, was within the agreement;

(p) As to the land-tax, see infra, Part 2, Div. 1, c. 1, s. 3, Deductions.

(2) See Hopwood v. Barefoot, 11 Mod. 238; Brewster v. Kitchin, 1 Ld. Raym. 317; Armfield v. White, 1 Ry. & M. 246; Bradbury v. Wright, 2 Dougl. 624; Payne v. Burridge, 12 M. & W. 727; Governors of Christ's Hospital v. Harrild, 2 M. & Gr. 707; Bennett v. Wormack, 7 B. & C.

627. See also infra, Part 2, Div.
1, c. 1, s. 3, Deductions; Sweet
v. Seager, 2 C. B. N.S. 189.
(r) 2 Dougl. 624.

(s) Palmer v. Earth, 14 M. & W. 428.

(t) Guardians of Bedford Union v. Bedford Improvement Commissioners, 7 Exch. 777.

(u) Reg. v. Inhabitants of Aylesbury, 9 Q. B. 261.

(v) 3 M. & W. 312.

but that was upon the ground of its being a scot, and not a parliamentary tax. In Baker v. Greenhill (w), a landlord was, with other landowners, liable to repair a bridge, ratione tenure. The tenant of the land had covenanted to pay the rent, "free and clear of and from any land-tax, and all other taxes and deductions whatsoever, either parliamentary or parochial, now already taxed or imposed upon the demised premises, or upon the tenant, his heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns in respect thereof, the landlord's property-tax or duty only excepted." Some local acts of Parliament, reciting the liability of the landlord ratione tenure, had enacted that he and the other landowners who were liable should keep the bridge in repair, and had enabled them to raise the requisite moneys by rates among themselves, according to the value of the lands chargeable, and had given them a power to levy the amount, if necessary, by distress. It was held that the liability to contribute to these repairs did not, by the operation of the local acts, become a parliamentary tax or deduction within the meaning of the covenant of the tenant. Lord Denman in giving the judgment of the Court, said: "We are of opinion that the acts of Parliament for enabling persons interested to raise the necessary funds for the repairs of the bridge by contribution among themselves, do not impose any tax within the meaning of the covenant. The charge was already created, and the acts merely supply a more convenient mode for raising the necessary funds to meet it." Where a local act imposed duties of paving upon a landlord, and in default gave power to commissioners to execute the works, and recover expenses from the owner, it was held that the duty, in the first

(20) 3 Q. B. 148.

Repairs.

instance, was to pare, and not to pay money, and the tenant was therefore not liable to his landlord (x); but it is otherwise where a sum of money is levied. upon premises (y). A covenant to pay taxes on the land does not extend to church and poor rates, for these are personal charges (2).

Sometimes the lessor covenants to pay the rates and taxes; sometimes the burden of them is thrown partly on the lessee and partly on the lessor. Such covenants are seldom interfered with by the Legislature. But the property-tax, which the landlord is bound to pay, forms an exception to this rule. (a).

The lessee's responsibility for repairs is generally limited by an express covenant (b), which will run with the land (c). Usually there are three covenants by the lessee relating to repairs in a lease of buildings First, During the term to repair and keep in repair, &c., the demised premises; secondly, To repair according to notice, with a provision for the lessor to enter and view the premises; thirdly, At the determination of the term to leave the premises in repair.

The covenant to repair generally, and the covenant to repair after notice, have been held to be distinct

(x) Tidswell v. Whitworth, L. R. 2 C. P. 326, 36 L. J. C. P. 103.

(y) Thompson v. Lapworth, L. R. 3 C. P. 149; 37 L. J. C. P. 74; and see Bird v. Elwes, L. R. 3 Ex. 255, 37 L. J. Ex. 91.

(z) Head v. Starkey, 8 Mod. 314. See Tidswell v. Whitworth, L. R. 2 C. P. 326.

(a) 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35, ss. 60, 103, extended and altered by 17

Vict. c. 10, and other acts. See infra, Part 2, Div. 1, c. 1, s. 3, Deductions.

(b) As to obligation to repair arising from the mere relation of landlord and tenant. See Implied Covenants, post, sub.-sect. (b), p.

135.

(c) See Part 4, c. 1, s. 4, Covenants Running with the Land.

and independent covenants (d); but they may be so joined as to make one entire covenant (e).

The lessor sometimes enters into a covenant to repair; but without an express covenant he cannot be compelled to repair (ƒ).

Where the lessor covenanted to keep the "main walls, main timbers, and roofs " in repair, it was held that as to the main timbers and roofs, the lessor could have no knowledge of their state of repair without notice, and that therefore notice must be given by the lessee before he could bring an action upon the covenant (g).

On a demise of buildings a general covenant to repair has been usually construed to comprehend as well the buildings erected by the lessee as the buildings originally demised (h). So where a lessee erected fixtures for the purpose of trade, and afterwards took a new lease, to commence at the expiration of his former one, and the new lease contained a covenant to repair, it was held that he was bound to repair the fixtures (i).

Under a general covenant to repair, the lessee's liability is not confined to cases of ordinary and

(d) Baylis v. Le Gros, 4 C. B. N.S. 537; Few v. Perkins, L. R. 2 Ex. 92, 36 L. J. Ex. 54.

(e) Horsefall v. Testar, 7 Taunt. 385.

(f) Neale v. Ratcliffe, 15 Q. B. 916, 20 L. J. Q. B. 130; Cannock v. Jones, 3 Exch. 233; Bird v. Elwes, L. R. 3 Ex. 225, 37 L. J. Ex. 91.

(g) Makin v. Watkinson, L. R. 6 Ex. 25.

(h) Dowse v. Cale, 2 Vent. 126; Penry v. Brown, 2 Stark, 408; Brown v. Blunden, Skin. 121; In re Newbery, White v. Wakley, 28 L. J. Ch. 77, 26 Beav. 17; 17 Penry v. Brown, 2 Stark R. 403; but see Lant v. Norris, 1 Burr. 287; Cornish v. Cleife, 34 L. J. Ex. 19.

(i) Thresher v. East London Waterworks Co. 2 B. & C. 608.

gradual decay; but in a demise of buildings it extends to injuries done to them by fire, whether accidental or wilful, or by lightning, tempest, flood, or enemies, &c. (j). In consequence of this obligation, it is customary to introduce an exception against such accidents into the covenant (k). But a covenant to keep in the same state the woods, lands, and natural productions will not render the lessee liable for any injury which may arise to these from the act of God (1).

Under a covenant to repair and keep in repair the buildings demised during the term, the lessee is bound to keep them in repair at all times during the term (m); and the lessor, upon breach, can, during the term, recover damages commensurate with the injury done to his reversion (n).

Where the lessor brought an action for non-repair upon the determination of the lease, and had previously agreed by parol with a new tenant to pull down the buildings, and otherwise to improve the value of the property, it was held that the jury were not bound to give mere nominal damages (0).

A general covenant to repair is satisfied by the lessee keeping the premises in substantial repair (p).