428 MEAXIXG OF ''GOOD REPAIR." 



farm to replace the matters demised by leavin;:^ new instead of old, or 

 oak instead of apple-tree posts. A verdict was thereupon found for the 

 defendant, and the Court {Plait B. assen.) made the rule absolute for a 

 new trial, on the ground of misdirection. Parke B. said : " If at the 

 time of the demise the premises were old and in bad repair, the lessee 

 was bound to put them in good repair, as old premises ; for he cannot 

 * keep ' them in good repair without putting them into it. He might 

 have contracted to keep them in the state in which they were at the 

 time of the demise. This is a contract to keep the premises in good 

 repair as old premises ; but that cannot justify the keeping them in 

 bad repair, because they happened to be in that state when the defendant 

 took them. The cases all show that the age and class of the premises, 

 with their general condition as to repair, may be estimated in order to 

 measure the extent of the repairs to be done." Rnlfe B. added, " The 

 term ^ good re}Kiir^ is to be construed with reference to the subject- 

 matter, and must diifer, as that may be a palace or a cottage ; but to 

 ' keep in good repair ' presupposes the putting into it, and means that 

 during the whole term the premises shall be in good repair." 



In Baijlis V. Le Gros the lease contained a covenant Inj the lessee to 

 repair and Iceep in rejmir the premises ; and further, that it should he 

 lawful for the lessor once, or oftener in every year to enter the jjremises 

 and examine their condition, and if necessary give the lessee notice in 

 writing to repair, with a proviso that if the lessee should not perform 

 the covenants, it should be lawful for the lessor to re-enter. It was 

 held that these were independent covenants, and that the lessor had a 

 right to re-enter, as for a forfeiture, upon finding the premises out of 

 repair, though he had not given notice to the lessee to put them in 

 repair. The lessor, on examining the premises, found the defendant, who 

 was not the original lessee, in possession, and entering into an agreement 

 with him continued him as tenant. It was held that this was a sufficient 

 re-entry to oust the original lessee from further enjoyment. 



It was ruled by Patteson C.J., in Leach v. Thomcm, that a tenant 

 from ijear to year is not bound to do suhstantial repairs, hut only to Iceep 

 the premises ivind and watertight. The landlord of premises let from 

 year to year is not bound to keep them in repair in the absence of an 

 express contract for that purpose ; nor is he liable to damage arising 

 to his tenant from the want of repair {Gott v. Gandy). Where a tenant 

 paid a sum of money to his landlord for brcnches of covenant to repair, 

 committed during the occupation of his assignee and his assignee's 

 successor, he can recover damages against his assignee for the money 

 paid for the non-repair during the assignee's occupation, without showing 

 an apportionment {Smith v. Peat). The measure of damages for a Ireach 



