Landlord and tenant 363 



stance, any fact by which the productiveness of a farm and therewith 

 the solvency of the tenant are impaired may lead to a dispute. Care 

 is therefore taken to relieve the tenant of responsibility for damage 

 inflicted by irresistible force (natural or human) 1 or due to the land- 

 lord's fault. But defects of climate and soil 2 give no claim to relief, 

 since he is presumed to have taken the farm with his eyes open : nor 

 does the failure of worn-out fruit trees, which tenants were regularly 

 bound by their covenant to replace. The chief rights of the landlord 3 

 are the proper cultivation of the farm and regular payment of the rent. 

 In these the law duly protects him. The tenant is bound not to let 

 down the land by neglect, or to defraud 4 the landlord by misappro- 

 priating what does not belong to him: rent is secured normally by 

 sureties (fideiussores) 5 found by the tenant at the time of leasing, or 

 sometimes by the fact that all property of his on the farm is expressly 

 pledged 6 to the lessor on this account. Thus it is the aim of the law 

 to guard the presumably poorer and humbler party against hard treat- 

 ment, while it protects the man of property against fraud. In other 

 words, it aims at strict enforcement of the terms 7 of lease, while in- 

 clined to construe genuinely doubtful points or mistakes in favour 8 of 

 the party bound. That landlord and tenant, even in cases of fixed 

 money rent, have a certain community 9 of interest, seems recognized 

 in the fact that some legal remedies against third persons (for ma- 

 licious damage etc) could in some cases be employed 10 by either land- 

 lord or tenant. In short, the latter is a thoroughly free and responsible 

 person. 



That a tenant should be protected against disturbance 11 was a 

 matter of course. During the term of his lease he has a right to make 

 his lawful profit on the farm : the landlord is not only bound to allow 

 him full enjoyment (frui licere\ but to prevent molestation by a third 

 party over whom he has control. Indeed the tenant farmer has in 

 some relations a more positive protection than the landlord himself. 

 Thus a person who has right ofusus over an estate may in certain circum- 

 stances refuse 12 to admit the dominus\ but not the colonus or his staff 

 of slaves employed in the farm-work. Change of ownership can perhaps 



I xix 2 is 2 , 25, also is 1 * 8 . 2 xix 2 is 2 ' 5 . 



3 xix 2 is 3 , 242, 25 3 , 51?', 54 1 . 4 XVII 2 4 6 } XLIV 7 34 2 } XLV1I a 68 s. 



5 xix 2 54P"-, xx 6 14, etc. 6 xx i 2iP r , XLIII 32, 33, XLVII 2 62 3 . 



7 xix 2 9 2 . 3 , 23, 5iP r , XLV i 89. 8 xix 2 52, cf XLIX 14 50. 



9 xix 2 25 6 (Gaius?). 



10 ix 2 2j 14 , XLVII 2 8s 1 , 10 5 4 . Compare also xix 2 6o 6 , XLVII 2 52 8 . I 

 cannot deal with the difficult legal questions involved here. See Buckland's Elementary 

 principles 135. 



II xix 2 is 8 , 24*, 25 1 , xxxni 4 i 15 . 



12 VII 8 io 4 , n. Having nothing to do with ihefructns, the usuary cannot interfere 

 with the colonus. 



