454 COVENANT TO EErAIR. 



plaintiff to the repayment by the defendant eitlier as rent or compensa- 

 tion for use and occupation of the sum paid to the hmdlord by the 

 plaintiff". 



In the case of Feiv v, Perlcins, 2 L. E. Ex. 92, an indenture of lease, 

 vrith a clause for re-entry, contained a general covenant on the part of 

 the lessee to the premises demised in repair, and a further covenant 

 that he would, within three months after notice from the landlord, do 

 all repairs specified in the notice. The demised premises being out of 

 repair, the landlord gave the lessee notice to repair in accordance with 

 the covenants of the lease. Before the expiration of three months 

 ejectment was brought, and it was held that the notice was not a waiver 

 of the forfeiture incurred by the breach of the general covenant to 

 repair, and that the action was maintainable. 



In the case of Hooper- v. ClarTc, 2 L. R. Q. B. 200, one Campbell de- 

 mised the exclusive right and license to take and kill game on certain 

 land, with the use of a cottage, to the defendant for a term, and de- 

 fendant covenanted to leave the land as well stocked with game at the 

 end of the term as it was at the time of the demise. Campbell assigned 

 his reversion in the land and hereditaments to the plaintiff, who brought 

 an action at the end of the term against the defendant for a breach of 

 covenant, and it was held that the plaintiff, as assignee of the reversion, 

 could sue upon the covenant on the demise, was not a mere license, but 

 the grant of an incorporeal hereditament. 



The case o^ Mum v. Fahian, though referring to a house, may, never- 

 theless, be considered important to occupiers of land : a landlord ver- 

 bally agreed with his tenant to grant him a lease for twenty-one years 

 at an increased rent, but died before the lease was executed. Before 

 his death, however, the tenant had paid a quarter's rent at the increased 

 rate : held, that this payment of rent constituted a sufficient part per- 

 formance to take the case out of the Statute of Frauds, and specific 

 performance was decreed. 3Imn v. Fahian, 1 L. R. Ch. 35. 



The leading case on fixtures is Ehces v. 3Ia.iv. About fifteen years 

 before the expiration of his lease the defendant erected upon his farm, 

 at his own expense, a substantial heasf -house, a carpenter'' s shop, a 

 fuel-house, a curt-hovse, a pvmp-honse, and fold-yard. The buildings 

 were of brick and mortar, and tiled, and the foundations of them 

 nearly one foot and a half deep in the ground. The carpenter's shop 

 was closed in, and the other buildings were o])cn to the front, and sup- 

 ported by brick pillars. The fold-yard wall was of brick and mortar, 

 and its foundation was in the ground. 1'lie defendant, previous to the 

 exi)iration of his lease, pulled down the erections, dug up the founda- 

 tions, and carried away the materials, kaviug the premises in the same 



