Fixtures.—A fixture is something annexed to land either temporarily or permanently. Different rules apply to persons in different relations. The law favors removal by a tenant presuming that he does not put in things for the landlord's benefit, unless there is an agreement to that effect between them. On the other hand a different rule applies between the seller and purchaser of real estate. As between them the law presumes that the seller intended to keep the things affixed to the house, especially ranges and the like. On the other hand a somewhat different rule applies between mortgagor and mortgagee. The former is favored, but not so much as the tenant. Suppose the mortgagor was a nurseryman, and the land was taken for the debt by the mortgagee, would it include the trees and shrubs that had been planted for sale? The courts have given an affirmative answer.

The facts that are of special value in finding out whether a thing is a fixture or not are: (1) the actual annexation of the article to the realty; (2) the immediate object or purpose of the annexation; (3) the adaptability for permanent or mere temporary use; (4) and whether the article can be removed without material injury to the property to which it is annexed. See Lease.

Garage Keeper.—The garage has been said to be the modern substitute for the ancient livery stable. A garage man who receives the automobile of another to keep or repair—a service for which the owner is to pay a compensation—is a bailee for hire. While this relation of bailor and bailee exists, the owner is not ordinarily responsible for the negligence of the garageman or his servants in the care or operation of the automobile.

A public garage is not a nuisance. Even the storage of gasoline in suitable tanks set down in the earth is not a nuisance. Yet the business may become a nuisance when conducted in some localities, or in an improper manner. The operation of a public garage may therefore be enjoined in a purely residential section within a short distance of large churches, a parochial school and houses. Likewise the odors, the noise, and the fire hazard, which are occasioned by the construction and management of a garage, create a situation which justifies public regulation.

A garage keeper is generally allowed a lien on an automobile for storage and repairs. If no price has been fixed in advance, the garage keeper is entitled to recover of the owner the reasonable value of the services and materials furnished. When the automobile is brought to the garage by a chauffeur, the garage keeper should assure himself of the chauffeur's authority to order repairs, especially those of a permanent nature.

The garage keeper when storing a car for another for compensation must exercise reasonable care and prudence. If negligent he is liable for the damage. It is said that the liability of a garage keeper for hire is not affected by reason of the knowledge of the owner as to the place where the property is kept. Its acceptance by the garageman imposes on him the duty of exercising due care for its safety and protection. But he is not an insurer of the property; and therefore is not liable for loss by fire unless he has been negligent. Generally, in such a case the burden of proof is on the owner of the machine to show that the fire was caused by the negligence of the garageman. Sometimes one keeps a car for another for accommodation, receiving no compensation therefor. One who thus serves another is liable only for gross negligence.

The garage keeper must protect the property from theft. If he permits a machine to remain in an alley when it ought to have been inside his garage, he is liable. In one case a motorcyclist left his machine with a garage keeper to be kept over night, and also gave permission for its inspection by any one whom he might send around. A person appeared with a permit to inspect it who, under the permission, stole it and rode away. The garage keeper was rightfully held not liable.

If a garage keeper or his servant negligently runs a machine left in his custody for storage or repairs, the garageman is liable for the damage resulting to the owner. At the expiration of the bailment he must deliver the machine to the owner or person authorized by him to receive it, and is liable if neglecting or refusing. He is also liable if delaying unreasonably to make repairs, or for making them unskillfully. Lastly, if the car is driven by the garageman's servant while the bailment continues, the bailee, and not the owner, is responsible for any injury done to a third person by the servant's negligence. Of course, if the driver was acting outside the scope of his authority, and was using the car for personal purposes, neither the garageman nor the owner would be responsible for whatever happened. See Automobile: Chauffeur.

Homestead.—A legal homestead is the home or residence of a family land owner, and includes a specific area varying in the several states. By the more general rule the land must be connected in a single piece, though in some states the pieces may be distinct. Though divided by a highway this does not effect a separation, as the land therein belongs to the owner subject to the public rights to pass and repass and also use to keep the highway in repair. The peculiarity about a homestead is, it is protected by law from seizure by the owner's creditors.

One of the most important questions relating to a homestead is, the meaning of the head of a family. The term is not limited to a man having a wife and children. It includes an unmarried man with whom his widowed sister and children reside; or a man who supports his mother; likewise an unmarried woman with whom the children of a deceased sister are living. Nor need they live under the same roof, the essential thing is the relation and dependence existing between them. On the death of a husband owning a homestead the right survives to the widow, and usually to the minor children. Some statutes give her the absolute estate, others a life interest; in some states she loses the homestead by a subsequent marriage. In most states the rights of surviving children end on attaining their majority. In many states the surviving husband is entitled to the homestead right, even though there be no children. A husband does not lose his homestead when his wife withdraws from the family under a decree of divorce. Non-residents as a rule are not within the privilege of the homestead laws.

On the dissolution of a marriage by divorce, as the wife ceases to be a member of the husband's family, she loses her rights to the homestead. The decree of divorce may, in the dissolution of the marriage, reserve to her the right, and if she is the owner of the homestead she may continue to occupy it as one. The mere desertion of husband or wife by the other spouse will not, in itself, destroy the character of the homestead although an entire dissolution of the family will have that effect.

By the federal law every head of a family, or a person twenty-one years old and a citizen, or intended citizen, of the United States, if not the owner elsewhere in the United States of one hundred and sixty acres of land and has not previously obtained a federal homestead, is entitled to a quarter section or less of the public land. Three things are necessary: (1) An affidavit showing that the applicant comes under the law; (2) a formal application; (3) payment of the land office charges. When these things are done, the certificate of entry is delivered to the applicant and the entry is made. Then the entryman must actually reside on and cultivate the land for three years, and at the end of that period, he is entitled to a patent. The lands thus acquired are not liable for any debts contracted prior to the issuing of the patent.

The head of a family can sell or mortgage his homestead, whether he is solvent or not, nor can his creditors prevent its sale since they have no rights therein. And if he sells his homestead and with the proceeds buys another, the second is as fully protected from creditors as the other.

From liability for most debts a homesteader is exempt, but not for all. Generally the homestead is not exempt from taxes, but not everywhere from fines for public offenses or liability on official bonds. Debts contracted prior to the acquisition of the homestead and pre-existing liens in most states are enforceable against the homestead. So are debts contracted in improving or preserving the homestead. These include materials furnished, also the wages of clerks, servants, laborers and mechanics.

Husband and Wife.—The law, while regarding marriage as a contract, adds something more, for it cannot be terminated by the will or consent of the parties; a contract on the other hand in most cases can be. To constitute a marriage there must be an agreement or mutual assent by the parties. This agreement must be made freely, seriously and not as a joke. False representations of health, wealth, etc., do not invalidate the agreement, yet these may be grave enough to have that effect. Consent may be obtained by deceit or compulsion so gross as to justify a court in declaring that the parties were never legally married. A person may be too defective mentally to give an intelligent assent. A subsequent mental weakening would be no ground for annulling a marriage. An Illinois court recently remarked, it is a harsh rule that would permit a married man whose wife later in life became insane to put her away on account of her misfortune. If one were so intoxicated that he did not act intelligently, he could avoid his marriage.

A male at common law can marry at fourteen, a female at twelve. By statute a later date, twenty-one for males and eighteen for females has been fixed in many states. The right to disaffirm a marriage on the ground of non-age, unlike the parties to a contract, applies to both parties.

In this country marriage is regulated largely by the states, though a movement has been started to make marriage and divorce a matter of national regulation.

As marriages are of higher character than other contracts relating to the ordinary dealings of men, even those that are prohibited by law are for reasons of public policy not always void. They are therefore not void, simply because the formalities prescribed by statute in obtaining the license and solemnizing the marriage have not been observed, when the parties afterward live together like other married people.

A marriage ceremony is not void though performed by one outside his jurisdiction, or not having a license obtained at the proper place. Persons who improperly grant licenses and solemnize marriages may themselves suffer legally, but their wrongful action cannot be visited on others. The principle still prevails in most states that a marriage which is good by the common law, though contrary to statutory forms unless there is an express prohibition, is a valid marriage. In a few states a common law marriage is invalid.

A marriage that is valid by the law of the state where it was made, is valid everywhere. Nevertheless, the courts have great difficulty in applying the principle. Suppose that the resident of a state, for the purpose of evading its marriage laws, should go into another state and have the marriage solemnized, and then return, is the marriage valid in that state? No, but to lessen the rigor of the rule, the courts hold that both parties must have intended to evade the law, if, therefore, one of them was innocent the marriage was valid.

After marriage the husband's domicile becomes that of his wife, and her refusal to follow him without good cause, would be in law a desertion. It is said that a promise before marriage not to take her away from her mother and friends will not justify her in refusing to go with him. If, however, she had immediately after marriage, determined to separate from him and to take legal steps to that end, she could legally remain.

A married woman by the common law is answerable personally for her crimes as though she were unmarried, unless they were committed in her husband's presence. When together the law presumes she acted from his coercion, he therefore must be the sufferer, while she escapes. This rule though does not apply to the gravest crimes; for these both are liable. Like so many other legal rules the difficulty is in applying it. How near to the husband must she be when committing a wrong to render him liable and escape herself. In one of the cases a married woman was properly indicted for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors. At the time of selling them she was alone in the room, though she had sold them by her husband's order.

As the law regards husband and wife as one person, many peculiar things flow from this relation. Thus one cannot steal from the other; but either is criminally liable for an assault committed on the other. By statute in some states the right of either party to sue the other for wrongs has been greatly extended; nor is the husband liable for wrongs committed by his wife unless he participated in them. For example, in some states he is not liable for slanderous words spoken by her in his absence; in other states his liability continues. On the other hand, a wife who can manage and control her separate estate may in turn be liable for the wrongs of her husband while he is acting with authority as her agent.

A husband has a right of action for damages against any person who alienates his wife's affections. Nor can he be defeated by showing that he and his wife did not live happily together. Such facts though may be used to prove that her society was worth less than it would have been had they lived happily, in fact, by money valuation was not worth three cents. A husband forfeits his right to sue others for entertainment when his own misconduct justified and actually caused the separation, otherwise his remedy is complete against all persons whatsoever who have lent their countenance to any agreement for breaking up his household. On the other hand, this is a one-sided rule in some states; in others a wife has the same right to sue for the alienation of her husband's affections as he has for the alienation of hers.

By statute great changes have been made in the way of permitting married women to retain their property and manage it, and to do business. Formerly, all the personal property of a married woman went immediately by law to her husband, and he became responsible for her debts. She still retained her real estate and the management of it. Now, very generally, she also retains her personal property, also the income, very much as if she were unmarried. She often appoints him as her agent to manage her property, and when thus acting he is responsible to others and to her like any other agent. He may contract for erecting any building or improvement on her land, but should he contract in his own name for such improvement she cannot be held therefor, nor can any one who has done work or furnished materials put a lien thereon for them. It may be added that his right to act as her agent is never implied solely from the marital relation.

A wife may act in a representative capacity as agent for her husband, or for other persons, and may execute a power conferred on her by deed or will. She may also be appointed to act as executor, administrator or guardian, though under the common law theory her husband's consent was needful to her acceptance of any of these undertakings.

The common law relations of husband and wife have been greatly changed by statute since about 1844. "It is now," says Peck, "the usual rule of law throughout the United States, established in each state by its own statutes that the wife retains title to the property owned by her before marriage or acquired by her during the marriage, and the right to manage, use or sell it, without the concurrence of her husband. The right to contract, and to sue and be sued, naturally follows from her ownership and control of her property; in most of the states these rights are expressly conferred by statute; and in some they have been held to result by necessary implication."

The husband is generally relieved from liability for her debts or for her torts, except for such debts as are for her support or that of the family, or are within her express or implied agency to act for him. The common law estate of dower and curtesy are retained in some of the states, in the larger number they are materially modified by statute, or wholly abolished and replaced by a right of succession to each other's property as defined by statute.

The distinctive duties resting on a husband are to provide a home, to support his wife and children, to protect her and them from injury or insult. Thus a husband has the same right to protect his wife, to assert and maintain her rights, even to kill a person, if necessary in her defense, that he would have in his own behalf.

The duty of a husband to provide a home implies his right to select and fix the marital abode. The wife must live with him, and a refusal on her part to live in the home provided by him would constitute her a deserter. But he must select a home in good faith and in reasonable accordance with his means and their accustomed mode of life.

It is his duty to maintain order and law in his household. He is therefore liable to prosecution should his wife carry on the illegal sale of liquor, or in other ways defy the law.

A husband cannot chastise his wife, but he may use force to restrain her from committing a violent criminal wrong. Says a competent author: "That depends rather on the right of every one to use reasonable efforts to prevent violence and crime than on any peculiar power of the husband over the wife, and it would also justify like restraint of the husband by the wife."

It is the duty of the wife to assist in the maintenance of the family by such reasonable labor as the necessities of the family and their circumstances in life and financial position require; while the husband has no right to require her to do more than to care for the house and the family in the customary and proper manner. He cannot compel her to engage in business, to work for wages, nor to work for him in his business. The services of any kind which either may render to the other, or for the family, are rendered in consideration of the marriage relation, and of the mutual benefit received therefrom and neither has any right of action against the other for them.

It should be noted that the legislative revolution for the benefit of married women has chiefly affected the property relations of husband and wife, while their personal rights remain quite as before. Probably no single rule of the common law was so bitterly resented and so difficult to defend, as the vesting in the husband of the sole guardianship of their children. By statute in many states both parents are made guardian of them, and if they separate, the welfare of the children is regarded as the decisive question in fixing their guardianship, rather than the superior right of either parent.

A husband and wife by the modern law may agree to live separately. The arrangement in some states is effected through a trustee, in others this may be done by the parties themselves. By this the parties may agree on the disposition and division of their property when this can be done freely and intelligently. A separation agreement made through fear of her husband cannot be sustained.

A wife who voluntarily enters into an agreement of separation covering all property rights cannot, after her husband's death, have it set aside and then claim her rights in his estate, except in some states where community rights exist. On the other hand, her right to share in her husband's estate is not lost though she lives apart from him by agreement, unless this shows a clear intention to relinquish all claims to his estate.

The husband must support his wife. This is the law everywhere. While they live together the law presumes that he has given her authority to purchase necessaries on his credit, and therefore a tradesman can recover who shows that they were thus living and that the things furnished befitted their condition in life. When she is living apart from her husband the presumption is the other way, and a tradesman cannot recover without proof of the fact of her husband's authority to let her have the goods. But when she is living apart from him for good cause, and would starve if the things needful to sustain life did not come from some source, she has an absolute right to pledge her husband's credit for them.

What are the things for which she may pledge her husband's credit? Those required to sustain life and preserve decency, besides other things to maintain her in her social condition. Wearing apparel, furniture, jewelry, even legal expenses incurred in regaining her conjugal rights have been included.

Besides agreements to live separately, the law for several causes permits absolute separation. These are prescribed by statute, and vary greatly in the different states. Adultery is a cause recognized in all of them, for which an absolute divorce can be granted. Cruelty is another cause, almost as general, though more difficult to define. Actual violence is not necessary to constitute cruelty, threats of violence with an intention to do bodily harm will suffice. Again, the cruelty must be unmerited. If she has justly provoked the indignation of her husband, then his cruelty presents a different aspect. Nevertheless, if his cruelty bears no relation to her wrongful beginnings, she still has good ground for separation.

Desertion is a general ground of divorce, the law in every state prescribing a period of time, quite often three years. The period must be continuous. An offer to return made by the deserted spouse in good faith at any time before the separation has run for the statutory period will bar a divorce, but not if the offer is made afterward. Again, a husband who drives his wife away from him by his misconduct deserts her as clearly as if he had left her. To cease living together for the time fixed by statute is not desertion unless this was done intentionally. For example, separation on account of business, sickness, etc., is not desertion. Not only must there be an intention to leave the other party, this must be without consent.

Another cause for divorce, quite generally recognized, is habitual drunkenness. This must be of a gross and confirmed nature. While other causes exist the most general have now been mentioned. In some states there is a more general ground, any reason rendering married life a failure. Of course, much depends on the discretion, mental and moral make-up of a judge in applying the facts to a cause for separation that is so general. An agreement in advance to make a cause of divorce is everywhere condemned by the law.

Divorces are of two kinds: from the bond of marriage, often called absolute divorces, which put an end to the marriage relation and render the parties single; and divorces from bed and board, limited divorces, more accurately called judicial separations, in which the marriage relation is not dissolved, but the injured party is given the right to live separate from the other. In more than half of the American states no distinction is made between kind of divorce, all divorces are absolute, from the bond of marriage.

The legal effect of divorces is still a grave matter. When a divorce has been legally granted by a state, the courts of every other state for obvious reasons recognize and try to uphold the decree or judgment, though not all of them, and consequently strange results follow. Thus a person who was married and living in New York leaves his wife for good reason and goes to Connecticut. After acquiring a legal residence there and proper standing in a court, he applies for a divorce, the proceedings are regular in every respect and a divorce is granted. He marries again and takes his wife to New York for a visit. There he is sued by the first wife for support, moreover, by the laws of New York he is an adulterer. In New York he is still married to the first wife, in Connecticut to the second. If children are born of the second marriage they are legitimate as long as they live in Connecticut, illegitimate should they go to New York. One of the latest legal writers on this difficult subject says: "Foreign divorce judgments granted in states where the plaintiff had obtained an actual, bona fide residence, will doubtless continue to be recognized by the great majority of our states, but the states of New York, California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and possibly some other states, which have adopted the extreme New York doctrine, are permitted by the rule established in the Haddock case—a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States—to continue to refuse recognition of divorce judgments in other states."

Innkeeper.—An innkeeper's house is a public place to which travelers may resort. He cannot therefore prohibit persons who come under that character in a proper manner and at suitable times from entering, so long as he can accommodate them. He is not obliged to receive one who cannot pay for his entertainment. Indeed, he must exclude some persons who apply, notably thieves. He can refuse to admit all whom he has reason to believe will disturb the peace and safety of his guests; and can afterward exclude all who, though admitted, prove to be noisy and disturbers of the comfort and safety of others. And if having a stable he is under the same obligation to receive and care for horses as he is to receive the person to whom they belong. Again, he is not required to provide a guest with the precise room he may select, but only reasonable and proper accommodations. If he refuses to do so he is liable in law to the applicant.

In caring for the baggage of a guest, the law is not as well settled as it might be. A competent writer has said: "They are insurers of the property of their guests committed to their care, and are liable for its loss, unless caused by the act of God, a public enemy, or the neglect or fault of the owner or his servants." This strictness of liability, it is said is necessary to protect travelers against any collusion between the innkeeper and his servants, and to compel him to take care that no improper persons are admitted into his house. His charge for the entertainment of his guests is sufficient to cover this risk; he also has a lien on their property entrusted to his care to indemnify him against loss.

By statute in many states innkeepers are exempt from loss by fires which are in no way caused by their own negligence or that of their servants. If a horse dies while in the innkeeper's charge, he is liable unless he can show facts that excuse him.

If the goods of a guest are stolen by the innkeeper's servants or domestics, by another guest, or by someone outside the inn, the innkeeper must make restitution, for it is his duty to provide honest servants, and to exercise an exact vigilance over all persons coming into his house as guests or otherwise. His responsibility extends to all his servants and domestics, and he is bound in every event to pay for them if stolen, unless they were stolen by a servant or companion of the guest. Illness or absence of the innkeeper does not excuse him. An innkeeper is not liable for the loss of a guest's property when this loss is due to the fault or negligence of the guest himself. Thus an unnecessary display of money or valuables, or leaving them where they would tempt thieves, may be negligence. But failure to lock or bolt his door is not necessarily negligence on the part of a guest. It is only evidence of negligence. Nor is an innkeeper exonerated when a theft is committed by a fellow guest with whom the owner of the property stolen had consented to occupy the same room.

An innkeeper may make needful and reasonable regulations that are to be observed by his guests to secure the safety of his property. When they are made and brought to the knowledge of a guest he is bound by them. By contract, custom and statute the responsibility of an innkeeper may be changed. In many states by statute an innkeeper avoids liability for the valuables of his guest unless they are deposited with him. These statutes are construed strictly in favor of the guest. Nor can an innkeeper even by these exempt himself from everything, for if a guest were required to deposit all he had to secure such protection, he would be in a strange fix. Said a Georgia court: "Is the guest to deposit his valise there, and go and send for it to get out a clean shirt?"

If a guest goes away, leaving his valise or other things with an innkeeper, he is not required after a reasonable time to observe such diligence in keeping them as he receives nothing in the way of compensation for so doing.

Keepers of lodging and boarding houses are not innkeepers, nor subject to their liabilities. The proprietor of such a house does not hold himself out to the world as prepared to supply accommodations for all who may apply, nor is he required to receive any persons unless he chooses to do so; an innkeeper's freedom is restricted in this respect. A house may have a double character of boarding house and inn. With transient persons who, without a definite contract, remain from day to day it is an inn; with those under definite contract it is a boarding house.

Land License.—A license is an authority to do something on another's land without acquiring ownership therein, and may be given orally, or it may be simply a permission to use or occupy. A license may be executory, relating to a future act, or it may relate to an act already done or executed. An executory license may be revoked at any time. Thus A laid a water pipe by permission across B's land who afterward rendered the pipe useless by cutting it. A had no redress, for B was acting within his rights. A ought to have obtained written authority for such action. He could, however, remove the pipe or any other improvement he had made on the strength of the license granted to him.

A license may be to do many things on another's land. Thus one may have a license to flood land, erect buildings, pass overland, maintain a ditch, cut timber, use land for railroad purposes. A common form of license is a ticket of admission to enter another's land to witness a spectacle or similar purpose.

No formality is needed to create a license. It may be in writing or be oral, or implied from the relations or conduct of the parties, as where a land owner assents to the doing of certain acts on his land. A person by opening a place of business licenses the public to enter therein for the purpose of transacting business. And a license to do a particular act necessarily involves any act essential thereto.

A license is usually revocable at the pleasure of the licensor, even though it be in writing and under seal, or a consideration has been given. If the licensee has expended money and made improvements on the faith of the license, can it be revoked? On this question the courts divide. The more general opinion seems to be that a license coupled with a grant or interest cannot be revoked. Or, if a license has in effect been so used as to become an easement it remains a burden on the land though sold to a purchaser, unless he had no knowledge of it. A license cannot be assigned by the licensee to another.

Again it is said that the revocation only affects the future exercise of the privilege, and does not prevent the licensee from removing structures or other movable articles placed by him thereon relying on the license, provided he does this within a reasonable time after the revocation. Even should the owner of land sell, the sale would not operate as a revocation to one to remove trees that he had already cut under a contract of sale and removal.

If a person grants a license to another to come on his land, he owes no duty to him except the negative one of not wantonly injuring or exposing him to danger. Merchants invite the public into their stores to buy wares, but those who accompany them without any intention of purchasing are not invitees, they are mere licensees. The duty of the storekeeper to one who enters his premises by mere license is not to keep the premises in a non-hazardous state, but only to abstain from acts willfully injurious to him.

Lease.—A lease is for the use of land, usually for a few years or shorter period. The lessor is more generally known as the landlord, and the lessee as the tenant. The lease may be oral, though the better way is to put the agreement in writing. If it be for a house or other building the lessee should insist on this, otherwise he would fare much worse should the building be destroyed by fire. Doubtless many do not know that, unless the lessee makes a specific agreement relieving himself, he is liable for the rent of a building, just the same if it is burned down as if he were still the occupier. This is the common law, which has been changed in some states by statute.

If the lease is for more than a year, or other short period, the Statute of Frauds, so called, requires that it must be in writing. If the time be less, a verbal lease may be made, even though the lessee does not take immediate possession of the premises. If on the other hand, it exceeds the statutory period, it is not absolutely void, but continues during the joint wills of both parties, and may therefore cease at the will of either party. If the landlord wishes to terminate it, he must give the tenant notice to quit; should he disregard the law and take immediate possession he would be a trespasser.

When the terms of a lease are in doubt, they are construed in favor of the tenant. A lease to a specified day continues during the whole of it, though custom or statute may prescribe a different rule. A term may also continue during the option of either of the parties to be ended on notice by the party exercising the option.

The most usual agreements or covenants in a lease are on the part of the lessor for quiet enjoyment, which secures the tenant against any hindrance or disturbance of his possession and enjoyment of the premises from persons deriving their title from the landlord, or from any one else who claims to be the owner. Also against all encumbrances, in other words, that no one has any easements or other rights in the premises. The landlord also usually agrees to repair, and often to renew the lease, and the lessee to pay rent, to insure and not to assign or underlet, without the landlord's consent. The parties may of course agree to do any other lawful thing, for example, sometimes the tenant agrees to make repairs, to reside in the premises, not to engage in some kinds of business, to cultivate the land, if the lease be of a farm, in a specified way. Again though an oral lease for a term of years at a stated annual rent may not fulfill the requirement of the Statute of Frauds, the parties may conform to it and thus create a tenancy in fact from which the law will imply a leasing from year to year. If therefore the tenant with the acquiescence of the landlord continues in possession for several months after the expiration of the original term, a tenancy for another year will be created with a corresponding liability on the part of the tenant for a full year's rent. And the measure and extent of the tenant's liability would be the same, whether his continued occupancy related to the original lease, or to a subsequent one just like it, made as the first was soon to expire.

The definite period for which a lease is given is called a term. If a lease is from the first day of January, it begins on the second day and lasts through the last day mentioned; in carefully drawn leases the number of days is fixed to avoid all dispute. A lease for a year with the privilege of remaining three years or longer does not mean a single period of three years, but three yearly periods as the tenant may elect.

A lease may be made to take effect in the future, provided the time for taking possession is not so far away as to violate some statute to the contrary. A lease for an hundred years in some states is deemed a parting with the absolute title to lands though railroads make long leases running for ninety-nine years. If the length of the term is not definitely expressed in the lease, the time may be ascertained by other evidence. When a lease is to run for one or more years "from" a specified day, the corresponding day of the year is excluded from the term, unless a contrary custom exists. A lease to a specified day ends with its expiration. If there be a doubt on which of two days a lease terminates, the lessee may decide. More generally, leases of doubtful duration are construed in favor of the tenants. By statute in New York leases which do not specify the length of occupation, extend to the first of the following May after taking possession.

A lease must describe clearly the premises, nor can a defective description be cured by outside evidence. Any language will suffice that shows the intention of the parties. The words "grant," "demise," and "to farm let," have a technical meaning, and are generally used, but other words may be and often are used. A memorandum expressing the consent of the owner that another shall have immediate possession of the premises, and shall continue to occupy them at a specified rent and for a definite term, is a sufficient lease; in general, any agreement under which one person obtains the right of enjoyment to property of another, with his consent and in subordination.

A distinction exists between a lease and an agreement for a lease, which should be understood, though it sometimes is not by the parties themselves. If the agreement is a lease, it cannot be changed by other evidence, for it is a completed contract; but if it is an agreement for a lease, then it is not complete and other evidence may be produced to show what the parties intended. How can the nature of the agreement be tested? By ascertaining whether it is complete or not. Thus A wrote to B that he would take his home at a stipulated rent for two years if he would put in a furnace, with which offer B at once complied.

This was a lease, for by putting in the furnace nothing more remained to be done. If he had not put in the furnace, or not before the time A was to take possession, there would have been no lease, unless A had waived his offer and taken possession.

Of course to make a valid lease there must be competent parties. A lease made by a minor is not void, but he may avoid or cancel it by some positive act. Can he do this before attaining his majority? On this the authorities differ. Again appears the risk of making contracts with minors, though the situation many times seems clearly to justify such action. A guardian may lease his minor's land for the period of his minority; if leased beyond, the ward may have the lease canceled for the excess. A lease terminates on the death of the ward, whatever may be the length of the term. A parent cannot lease the land of his minor child like a guardian.

By common law a lease made by a married woman was avoided after her husband's death. The modern statutes excluding her husband's power of control over her property and authorizing her to take and hold property as if she were an unmarried woman, have abolished both his power to invalidate the lease and also her power to repudiate it after his death.

A private corporation may make a lease of its property provided that in doing so it acts within its charter. A municipal corporation, while it may lease property belonging thereto of a private nature, cannot lease property which has been devoted to public use. A corporation whether public or private may take a lease of property so far as this may be a proper means of carrying out the purposes for which the corporation was created.

Executors and administrators may dispose of a lease belonging to the deceased, or make new leases for terms within the period covered by it. Trustees have a still larger authority to lease the lands entrusted to them, unless restricted by the terms of their trusteeship, or by statute. Though a member of a partnership, as we have seen, is an agent, he cannot make valid lease of partnership land.

What may be leased? Besides land, the right to a wharf, to flow with water the land of another, to go over another's land. An ordinary boarder, who has a room and boards in the house of another and who retains the possession and care of his room, is not a tenant. On the other hand the letting of an entire floor for lodgings may create a tenancy, and so may even a single room. A lease for an unlawful purpose is void, for example, for the sale of spirituous liquors contrary to law.

If the premises are occupied by the lessee and his rent is paid as specified in the lease, this is regarded as a ratification by him of an invalid or void lease. To this rule are some exceptions.

A rule of construction may here be added; if a blank form is used in making a lease and the printed and written parts or agreements are inconsistent, the matters written are regarded as expressing the intention of the parties.

Much might be said concerning the use of the premises. If a farm is rented and the lease is silent on the matter, the law presumes that the tenant will use it in a proper and husbandlike manner, like other exemplary farmers in that vicinity. He must cultivate the soil properly, preserve the timber, consume the hay as fodder to the cattle, if such be the custom, and keep the buildings and fences in repair. Manure in the ordinary course of farming belongs to the farm. To manure made in livery stables a different rule applies and the tenant can remove it. If the lease be of a mill it usually provides how it shall be run, if it be a house in the city and nothing is said about its use the law implies that there shall be no waste or destruction beyond the ordinary wear and tear. To use the doors for firewood is not uncommon with tenants, unless they are not burnable, though surely it is not a proper use of a leased house.

A farm tenant has the right to take and use material found on the land suitable and needful to repair the buildings, fences, also dead and fallen timber for fuel. He cannot use shrubbery and ornamental trees for this purpose, nor cut standing timber for this purpose. He is entitled also to the way going crop, but must remove it during his lease. He cannot go on the land afterward and remove crops, unless he was prevented by some good reason from removing them while he was in possession.

Can a lessee assign or sublet his lease? Of course this may be forbidden, and often is by the lessor, without his consent. If the lease is silent this can be done. If the lessee die, his executor or administrator can assign the remainder of his term. A lease may also be assigned if the lessee become insolvent, also by a new partnership created by the addition or retirement of a member. A transfer by the lessee of the whole or a part of his interest for a part of the time is a sublease and not an assignment. And whenever a sublease is made, the rights of the original lessor are not changed, nor does he recognize in any way the sub-tenant unless by agreement, nor has he any right of action against him. Of course there is nothing to prevent the parties from making any arrangement that may be agreeable to them.

As the lessee may assign or sublet unless forbidden, so may the lessor part with his interest in the leased premises. When an assignment of it is made, the assignee may sue in his own name for rent accruing after the assignment.

The lease of a private residence is not a warranty that it is reasonably fit for occupancy. Thus saith the law. Nor can a lessee, unless the lessor has misrepresented the healthfulness of the place, leave after the unwelcome discovery that it is not healthful. This seems to be rather harsh, but the rule is founded on the presumption that the lessee will examine the house before leasing and make proper inquiries about its healthfulness.

By the common law the lessor was not required to make repairs. This has been changed in some states by statute. He is not required to make repairs needed and known to the tenant at the time of making his lease. Hallways, staircases, elevators, and the like that are used in common by the tenants of a building and are under the landlord's control, must be kept in repair by him. If he shall let a many storied building to several tenants, to each tenant a story, who have exclusive possession thereof, the lessor will not be liable to any lessee for the damage caused by another.

If the landlord agrees to make repairs and keep the tenement in good condition, he is required to keep it in essentially the same condition as it was when the tenant took possession. Should the house or other building be destroyed by fire what then? An agreement to keep it in good repair imposes an obligation on the landlord's part to rebuild. But an agreement by the lessee to keep and leave it in good repair, does not require him to rebuild should it be destroyed by fire, or other cause without any fault of his own. If the lease provides that the insurance money, when the landlord has insured the premises, shall be applied to rebuild in the event of fire, he must regard his agreement, but if there be no such agreement, the tenant cannot compel his landlord to thus apply it. Should the lessor fail to fulfill his agreement to repair, the tenant is not excused from paying his rent, nor justified in leaving the premises. His remedy is to sue his landlord for the damages or injury to himself. And even if the premises be destroyed by fire the tenant must continue to pay his rent unless he has been wise enough to relieve himself by a proper clause, or unless some kindly statute has been passed relieving him on the happening of such an event. No oral stipulation, that the parties should make covering the effect of loss by fire or other contingency, would be binding if contrary to the terms of the written lease. As this is the highest form of the agreement, all verbal stipulations to the contrary must give way.

A tenant can make no permanent alteration without his landlord's consent; and should he do so and injure the premises the landlord may recover damages, or, if such an alteration is feared or threatened, he may prevent it by obtaining an injunction from a court ordering the tenant not to make it and penalizing him should the order be disobeyed.

When a lease is renewed, the new lease may be regarded in two different ways. It may be considered as the continuation of the lease, and thereby protecting all the interests created under it. And this will be the case whenever the old lease clearly shows that if a renewal should be made this was the intention of the parties. When nothing is said, a renewed lease is a surrender of the old one and different conditions may arise. It is important therefore when providing for the renewal of a lease to specify what the parties intend, whether a renewal or continuation on the old terms, or a renewal on other terms to be fixed at another time.

Usually a lease specifies not only the amount of rent to be paid, but the time of payment. If silent, yearly rent is not due until the end of the year, quarterly rent at the end of the quarter, monthly rent at the end of the month. When a lessee is evicted or turned out of possession by his landlord, he is excused from paying rent. What, therefore, is an eviction? Any act by the landlord, or by his agent, impairing the worth of the premises to the tenant, for example, the destruction of a summer house, turning rooting pigs into the premises, the erection of a new building rendering the leased premises unfit for occupation. One of the curious cases is the lease of a distillery which could not be run because the landlord prevented the lessee from getting a license. In like manner if the landlord is to furnish heat and fails to do so, the tenant is justified in leaving. More generally, any act by the landlord whereby the leased premises are rendered unfit or impossible for the purpose intended, and affecting the health and comfort of the tenant, is an eviction.

The eviction must be done by the lessor. An act done by a wrongdoer, not under the lessor's order, will not justify the lessee in quitting. Thus the darkening by an adjacent owner of the lessee's premises by erecting a structure, however injurious it might be, would not justify the lessee in quitting and refusing to pay his agreed rent. This is one of the risks taken when making the lease.

Suppose a person occupying state land is evicted by the state, must he continue to pay rent? In Missouri the rent ceases, or if evicted of a part, he must pay rent on the remainder. In some states he must still continue to pay his rent and then demand compensation for his loss.

Sometimes land is rented on shares, a very common way in the olden time. When this is done, the relation of landlord and tenant may be created, or perhaps a partnership relation. If the farmer is to do the work of a servant of the owner of the farm, receiving in return therefor, a specified part of the crops, the agreement is one of hiring and not a lease. If the farmer has rightful possession of the use of the land, then the payment of his rent in produce does not affect his relation as a tenant. The natural increase of stock leased with a farm belongs to the tenant, and a landlord cannot recover for the death of cattle in the tenant's possession, unless he can prove his tenant's negligence. And if a lessee should sell part of the stock contrary to the lease, the purchaser would be liable therefor.

A landlord often leases separate parts of a building to different tenants, while the stairways and passages to them, though intended for their use, are still under his control. He thus invites the tenants and other persons having relations with them to use the approaches to obtain access to their rooms or apartments, and is accordingly liable when they are not kept in proper repair; the same as any owner of structures either expressly or impliedly invites persons to enter them. If therefore he should leave elevator shafts, or hatchways unguarded, he would be clearly liable for the consequences. So, too, should a mill owner have a defective bridge to his mill, forming part of a common way thereto, he would be liable for the consequences.

The lessor is liable if he leaves his premises with a way or cellar entrance, or coal hole inadequately guarded at the time the lessee takes possession, but not if the guard or covering gets out of repair during the tenancy, or is temporarily left unguarded by the tenant or some third person. If the hole or other dangerous place is made without proper authority, it is considered a nuisance and the owner is liable for all injuries whether he has rented the premises or not. Who is liable for injuries caused to travelers by ice and snow on the pavement? This is a hard question to answer in a short space. If the ice or snow has accumulated by reason of a defective roof, then the landlord is liable because of its faulty construction. In some parts of the country it is most difficult to keep the walks safe in winter. Experience has led the parties to make stipulations defining and fixing their liability. Many states also have statutes and cities ordinances regulating the duties and liabilities of landlords and tenants.

When a lease is about to expire a difficult question sometimes arises, what can the tenant take away with him? Of course he can remove all his furniture and the things that can be separated without injury to the premises, but during his tenancy, he may have added things possessing a more permanent nature, called fixtures, these he cannot remove. The courts have had great difficulty in deciding in some cases what these are. In a general way it may be said that whatever a tenant adds to the premises can be removed, while he is still in possession, without material injury to it, but he cannot remove anything afterwards. Suppose the tenant erects a building, can he remove it? One would not think of his building this for the benefit of his landlord. Suppose he had built it on a foundation from which it could be easily removed, a court would have no difficulty in deciding that it belonged to the tenant. Many cases have arisen about ranges and stoves. An ordinary stove of course can be removed; suppose it is affixed to the house in such a way that some portion of the wall will be detached by the removal, can this be done? Not if the wall will be badly injured. How badly? This is a question of fact to be answered by inquiry in every case. Among the fixtures that can be removed are hangings and tapestries, ornamental chimney pieces, wooden cornices, wainscoting affixed to the wall by screws and spikes, bells and bell wires, chandeliers, cisterns and sinks though fastened by nails and set into the floor, fire frame fixed in the fireplace, pipes for gas or water, grates removable without injury to the building, pumps, stoves, ranges and furnaces, gas ranges and water closet appliances, washtubs fastened to the house, gas fixtures and shelves. A greenhouse is not removable, nor gutters placed in the roof of a dwelling, nor a stairway, nor flowers, shrubs, or bushes planted for ornamental purposes.

Chattels placed by a tenant on leased premises for the purpose of carrying on his business or trade are generally regarded as personal property. Annexations of this kind are called trade fixtures and the law is liberal in permitting their removal. Show cases, counters and shelves, engines, boilers, machinery, tanks in a distillery, a bowling alley, bar fixtures, even buildings are removable. The same liberal rule applies to agricultural implements. A tenant, therefore, if wishing to remove whatever he may have added, should be careful about their nature, or protect himself by an effective agreement.