SECTION III. LETTING AND HIRING OF FURNISHED HOUSES AND LODGINGS, AND ACCOMMODATION IN PUBLIC INNS. Liabilities of the lessor of ready furnished houses and apartments.— Contracts for the letting and hiring of ready furnished houses and apartments are contracts of a mixed nature, partaking partly of the nature of a demise of realty, and partly of a contract for the letting and hiring of moveable chattels, and the lessor, therefore, in contracts of this description, is clothed with the duties and responsibilities resulting from contracts for the letting and hiring of chattels in addition to those which have been previously described as flowing from demises of realty simply. If a man furnishes a dwelling-house or an apartment in a house, and offers it to be let ready furnished, he impliedly holds it out as fit for immediate habitation and use, and the contract for the letting and hiring of it is analogous to a contract for the letting and hiring of a ship, rigged and manned, and prepared for sea, or of a carriage horsed and equipped, and made ready for a journey on land; (ante, 719;) and there is consequently an implied warranty on the part of the lessor that such ready furnished house or lodging is reasonably fit for habitation and occupation by a tenant; and if the furniture is unfit for use, or is incumbered with a nuisance of so serious a nature as to deprive the tenant of all beneficial enjoyment of it, the latter is entitled to throw up both house and furniture, and bring an action against the landlord for a breach of contract.Thus, where the beds of a ready furnished house let to a tenant at a rent of eight guineas per week, were so infested and overrun with bugs that they could not be slept in, it was held that the tenant was justified in leaving the house and resisting the landlord's demand for the rent. (a) "In the case of a contract for the hire of a ready furnished house," observes Lord Abinger, "the letting of the goods and chattels as well as the house, implies that the party who lets the house so furnished is under an obligation to supply the other contracting party with whatever goods and chattels may be fit for the use and occupation of such a house, according to its particular description and suitable in every respect for his use." (b) (a) Smith v. Marrable, 11 M. & W. 5; M & W. 60, 65, 87. 12 (6) per Ld. Abinger. Sutton v. Temple, 12 M. & W. 60. Parke, B. & Rolfe, B., Ib. 65, 67. Hart v. Windsor, ib. 87. Tindal, C. J. Sur plice v. Farnsworth, 4 M. & Gr. 584. When a man lets out lodgings or apartments in a house, he impliedly demises them with all their proper accompaniments, and warrants to the hirer the use of all such accessorial things as are necessary to enable him to enjoy the principal subject matter of the demise in the manner intended. He impliedly grants to the tenant the use of the door-bell, the knocker, the skylights or windows of the staircase, and the use of the water-closet, unless it be otherwise stipulated at the time of the taking of the lodgings; and if the landlord deprives him of the use of either, he forthwith subjects himself to an action for a breach of contract. (c) He impliedly covenants or promises, moreover, according as the demise may or may not be under seal, to keep the roof of the house water-tight, and the windows in a reasonable state of repair, so that the lodger and his effects suffer no injury from rain and exposure to the weather. By the Roman and continental law, moreover, the lodging-house keeper or lessor of apartments who remains in the general possession of the house is bound to exercise all ordinary and reasonable care for the protection of the persons and property of his tenants and lodgers; to see that the outer door is fastened at night, and that strangers or suspected or doubtful characters are not permitted, unknown to the lodger, to congregate in the house at unscasonable hours of the night. He is bound, moreover, to exercise ordinary care and vigilance in the selection and appointment of the servants and domestics within the house, and to take all such precautions as a prudent householder may be expected to take to guard against robbery and fire. Liabilities of the LESSEE of furnished houses and apartments.-We have already seen that a contract for the letting and hiring of furnished lodgings is a contract for an interest in land within the fourth section of the Statute of Frauds, (ante, 93, 94,) and that a lessee, consequently, who orally agrees to take lodgings at a certain rent, and neglects to enter and take possession, cannot be sued upon the contract for not taking possession, or for the non-payment of the rent reserved or agreed to be paid. (d) Having taken possession, however, he may be sued for use and occupation (ante, 716); and if he brings goods and chattels of his own upon the premises, they may be distrained for the rent of the lodgings as in ordinary cases of demises of pure realty. (e) The liabilities of the lessee in respect of the conservation and preservation of the subject matter of the demise are the same as those of the lessees of realty and the hirers of chattels for use (ante, 718). If the possession as well as the use of the (c) Underwood v. Burrows, 7 C. & P. 28. (e) Newman v. Anderton, 5 B. & P. 227. Mechelen v. Wallace, 7 Ad. & E. 54. lodgings and furniture is granted to the lessee, the latter is bound to deliver up the furniture at the expiration of the term in good order and condition, deteriorated only by ordinary wear and tear and the reasonable use of it. If he received linen, plate, and household utensils clean and fit for use, he is bound to render them back to the lessor in the same state; (f) but if the use only of such linen, plate, and household utensils is granted, as is ordinarily the case in contracts for the letting and hiring of apartments and portions of a house, the possession of them continuing in the landlord who retains the general possession of the house and its contents, the hirer is not bound to clean up the things before he leaves. Duration of the term of hiring.-Notices to quit.-Lodgings and ready-furnished apartments are rarely the subject of a yearly hiring, and there is no presumption from a general holding thereof in favour of a hiring for a year, and from year to year, as in the case of a demise of land. (g) The duration of the term corresponds in general with the time limited for the payment of the rent. If the rent is payable quarterly, the presumption is in favour of a hiring by the quarter; if, on the other hand, it is payable monthly or weekly, there is a hiring by the month or week. The same rule prevails in the French law. (h) If the tenancy be from half year to half year, half a year's notice to quit must be given; if from quarter to quarter, a quarter's notice; if from month to month, a month's notice, and if from week to week, a week's notice to quit; and if the lodger quits his apartments without giving such notice, he is liable to the payment of a quarter's, a month's, or a week's rent, according to the term of hiring; (i) and the lodging-house keeper may recover such rent, although he has put a bill in the windows advertising the apartments to be let, or has lighted and used fires in the rooms; (k) but if he actually re-lets the apartments, the original contract is at an end, and the rent ceases. (1) The length of the notice to be given may be otherwise regulated by the express agreement of the parties, and also by the custom and usage of the district. (m) It must, however, in all cases expire at the end of the current term of hiring. (n) If apartments are hired in a dwelling-house at a fixed rent, payable (f) Stanley v. Agnew, 12 M. & W. 827. (g) Abbott, C. J., Willson v. Abbott, 4 D. & R. 694. Right v. Darby, 1 T. & R. 162. (h) Pothier, Louage, No. 30. (2) Doe v. Hazell, 1 Esp. 94. Doe v. Raffan, 6 Esp. 4. Doe v. Scott, 4 M. & P. 20; 6 Bing. 362, s. c. Doe v. Bayley, 5 C. & P. 67; 6 East, 121, n. (k) Redpath v. Roberts, 3 Esp. 225. Grif fith v. Hodges, 1 C. & P. 419. (1) Walls v. Atcheson, 11 Moore, 379; 3 Bing. 462; 2 C. & P. 268, s. c. (m) Huffell v. Armitstead, 7 C. & P. 57. half yearly, the hiring is for a year certain, and the tenant may leave at the end of the first year without giving any notice to quit. If, however, the tenant continues in possession after the first year under such a hiring, a taking from year to year may be inferred. (o) The same rule prevails in the case of a hiring for a week. (p) A tenant agreed to pay for the occupation of furnished apartments, "from March the 4th to September the 4th, the sum of 521. 10s. ;" also "to occupy the rooms from the 4th of September to the 4th of December on the same terms, viz., 261. 5s. for the three months, or to take them unfurnished at the rate of 841. per annum;" and it was held that this was a lease for six months and for a further period of six months, and not a lease from year to year. (2) If a tenant remains in possession of lodgings after the termination of his term of hiring, or after the expiration of a notice to quit, the landlord has no right to expel him by force, and turn out his boxes and trunks and goods and chattels into the street; but must assert his rights by peaceable means through the medium of the legal tribunals, and with the aid of the accredited officers of the law. (r) But if the lodger has removed his baggage, goods, and chattels, and has left the house, the landlord may lock the door upon him, and resist his re-entry by force. Letting and hiring of stowage and places of deposit.—A contract for the letting and hiring of a vault, or store, or place of deposit in a warehouse, is a contract analogous to the letting and hiring of an apartment in a house for the occupation of a tenant or lodger. In the civil law, a man who let out a store or place of deposit for corn, wine, oil, or merchandize of a perishable character, impliedly warranted his store-house to be fit for the purpose for which it was known to be required. If the hirer had inspected it, and approved it prior to the contract, the storekeeper was not responsible for patent defects which the hirer might by the exercise of ordinary vigilance have made himself acquainted with, but for all latent defects causing injury to the property deposited he was responsible. If the store-room was in a roofed building, he was bound to keep the roof water-tight. If the places of deposit were upon or below the surface of the ground, he was bound to keep them properly drained and free from water. If he remained in the general possession of the premises, it was his duty to see that the outer gates were fastened at a proper hour of the night, that suspicious characters were not permitted to lurk about the spot, and that the rooms and stores were watched with proper (o) Willson v. Abbott, 4 D. & R. 693. (q) Atherstone v. Bostock, 2 Sc. N. R. 643; 2 M. & Gr. 511. (r) Hillary v. Gay, 6 C. & P. 284. Newton v. Harland, 1 M. & Gr. 644; 1 Sc. N. R. 474. and reasonable care. (s) He was bound, in short, to take all ordinary precautions to secure his storehouse from attacks without, and from dangers within, from damage by fire and damp, and all things hurtful to the property deposited beneath his roof. LIABILITIES OF COMMON INNKEEPERS. INNKEEPER. 66 Of the distinction between a LODGING-HOUSE KEEPER and a commoN Every person who makes it his business to entertain travellers and passengers, and provide lodging and necessaries for them and their horses, and attendants, is a common innkeeper; and it is in no way material whether he have any sign before his door or not." (t) "A sign," "observes Holt, C. J., "is not essential to an inn, but is evidence of it." (u) A London "coffee-house," where beds and provisions are furnished by the day or for the night, or for a longer period, to persons in certain stations of life, who may think fit to apply for them, is a common inn. (x) But if a man merely opens a house for the sale of provisions and refreshments, and does not profess to furnish beds and lodging for the night, he is not a common innkeeper. (y) And if he professes to let only private lodgings, and does not offer his house to the public as a place of reception and entertainment and lodging for all comers who are able and willing to pay for the accommodation offered, he cannot be said to keep a common inn. Of the duty of a common innkeeper to furnish lodging and food to all travellers.-Every man who opens an inn by the way-side, and professes to exercise the business and employment of a common innkeeper, is, by the common law or custom of the realm, bound to afford such shelter and accommodation as he possesses to all travellers who apply and tender, or are able and ready to pay the customary hire, (2) and are not drunk or disorderly, or labouring under contagious or infectious diseases. (a) And if he neglects or refuses so to do, he is liable to an action on the case for the recovery of any damages that may have been sustained by reason of (s) Horrearii qui horrea sua locant ad deponendas merces, etiam exactæ custodiæ operas locasse intelliguntur. Igitur si merces perierunt aut susceptæ sunt, tenentur eo nomine quod hanc custodiam non præstiterint: de vi majore autem non tenentur. Pandect. Just. ed. Poth., lib. 19, tit. 2, s. 3, art. 3. 71. (t) Bac. Abr. Inns. (B.) (u) Parker v. Flint, 12 Mod. 255. (x) Thompson v. Lacy, 3 B. & Ald. 283. (2) Godb. 346, pl. 440; 1 Salk. 388; 12 Mod. 484. Rex v. Ivens, 7 C. & P. 219; 6 T. R. 17, 18. Hawthorn v. Hammond, 1 C. & K. 404. (a) Howell v. Jackson, 6 C. & P. 725. Fell v. Knight, 8 M. & W. 269; ib. 220, 221. |