430 LANDLORD XOT BOUND TO LAY OUT INSURANCE MONEY. 



was made in Dennis v, Lofft, on the authority of an observation in Lord 

 St. Leonard's " Hand Book," p. 101, to overthrow the doctrine estab- 

 lished in this case and Holtpzaff'cU v. BaJrcr. The defendant was sued 

 for the use and occupation of a farm-house, some of the buildings of 

 "which had been accidentally destroyed by fire. He placed an equitable 

 plea on the record to the effect that the landlord had insured the 

 buildiugs in question (which were of a description much to enhauce the 

 value of tlie premises), and having received the sum insured, had not 

 expended the same on rebuilding the premises. This plea was demurred 

 to, and the Court of Queen's Bench, without calling the plaintiff, gave 

 judgment against the defendant, remarking that the law of Scotland as 

 to this point was different from that of England, in which it is no 

 excuse for nonpayment of rent that the landlord has insured and re- 

 ceived the money, if he has entered into no covenant to lay it out on 

 the premises. 



Wlicre a farm-liouse was turnt hy accident, it was held by the House 

 of Lords, reversing the judgment of the Court of Session, that the 

 landlord is not bound to rebuild if there was no written agreement 

 {Bayne v. WaJlcer). If a landlord is bound in law or equity to repair 

 in certain cases, and the tenant in one of those cases owing to a sudden 

 tempest is obliged to make those repairs to prevent further mischief, 

 and then an action is brought against him for the rent, equity will not 

 inter{)ose, because the tenant is entitled to charge the landlord with the 

 re[iairs, and may set-off in an action for rent the money advanced by 

 him for repairs, as money paid to the use of the landlord {Waters v. 

 Weirjatt). 



The plaintiff in Yates v. Dunstcr (in which Beech v. WJdte and Bennet 

 v. Iretand were cited) being the assignee of a lease, which contained a 

 covenant to repair, underlet the premises to the defendant, upon the 

 terms that he should " maintain them in as good a state as they would 

 be when repaired by him." Shortly after the defendant took possession, 

 the })remises, which were old and dilapidated, were destroyed by fire. 

 The jury found that the cost of rebuilding them would be £1,635, but 

 that they would be more valuable by £600 ; and the Court of Exchequer 

 held that the defendant was onty hound to put the premises in the same 

 state as they icould have been if lie had repaired them hfore the fire, and 

 consequently he was liable to pay as damages £1,035 only. 



In The Duke of Newcastle v. The Hundred of Broxtowe, it was held 

 that in assessiny compensation for the demotition of a divelliny-house under 

 statute 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 31, the jury ought to consider what sum will 

 be necessary to repair the injury and replace the house in the state in 

 which it was at the time when the outrage was committed, and not 



