RIGHT OF ASSIGNEE OF REVERSION. 425 



reserved to the defendant to move to enter a verdict for him, and to the 

 plaintiff to move to increase the damages to £26. Cross rules were 

 obtained accordingly. The rule for a nonsuit was discharged, and that 

 to increase the damages made absolute. Lord Ahingor C.B. said : "I 

 take the rule of law to be, that if a person contract for the use and 

 occupation of land for a specified time, and at a specified rent, he is 

 bound by that bargain, even though he took it for a particular purpose, 

 and that purpose be not attained." 



In Hart v. Windsor, which virtually overthrew Smith v. 3Imral)Ie, 

 ParTce B. said : " It appears to us to be clear on the old authorities, 

 that there is ?io implied warranty on a tease of a house or of land, that 

 it is, or shall be, reasonabhj fit for habitation or niJtivation. The implied 

 contract relates only to the estate, not to the condition of the property." 

 So in Keats v. Earl of Cadogan, it was held that there is no implied duty 

 in the owner of a house, which is in a ruinons and unsafe condition, to 

 inform a proposed tenant that it is unfit for habitation, and no action 

 will lie against him for an omission to do so, in the absence of express 

 warranty or active deceit. 



Stat. 32 Hen. YIII. c. 34, applies to leases by deed only ; and ivhere 

 a lease is not under seal, the assignee of the reversion cannot maintain 

 assumpsit against the lessee for breach of his contract with the assignor to 

 repair {Standen v. Christmas). And there is no implied contract to use 

 demised premises in a tenant-like manner, where the tenant has expressly 

 contracted to repair (ib.). Where a lease for a term certain was granted 

 by wi'iting, not under seal, which contained an undertaking on behalf 

 of the lessor and his assigns for quiet enjoyment, his assignees may 

 maintain assumpsit for use and occupation ; for the lessor having 

 granted for himself and his assigns the permission of any person who 

 might become assignee of the reversion during the lease was virtually 

 included, so that the occupation became in point of law permissive on 

 the part of the assignee as soon as his interest accrued (ib.). And jw 

 Curiam : " The occupation being in point of law by the permission of 

 the plaintiff, the action is maintainable in its present form, by virtue of 

 the statute 11 Geo. II. c. 19, s. 14. In most of the cases referred to on 

 the argument, the tenancy was from year to year. It is obvious that 

 the assignee of the reversion has then the power of determining the 

 tenancy by notice ; and if he refrains irom doing so the occupation 

 may well be said to be by his permission. In Lumleg v. Hodgson the 

 tenancy was from year to year, and a notice to quit had actually been 

 given, but not persevered in. The action was for a year and a half's 

 rent ; the last year's rent all accrued after the expiration of the notice 

 to quit ; and the occupation during that time was clearly by the per- 



