which he paid for it, with interest.64 And where the action is not by the immediate vendee of the warrantor but by a subsequent purchaser the plaintiff's recovery is generally restricted to the amount received by the warrantor with interest.65 In a few jurisdictions a plaintiff is allowed the theoretically correct damages of the value of the land including any improvements upon it at the time of the eviction.66 Where the plaintiff has been evicted from part of the land his damages under the prevailing rule are such a proportion of the consideration as the value of the land which the plaintiff has lost bears to the total value of the premises.67 But jurisdictions which allow Morrow v. Baird, 114 Tenn. 552, 86 S. W. 1079; Boyd v. Bartlett, 36 Vt. 9; Marbury v. Thornton, 82 Va. 702, 1 S. E. 909; Harr v. Shaffer, 52 W. Va. 207, 43 S. E. 89.

64 Irwin v. Maple, 252 Fed. 10, 164 C. C. A. 122 (Ohio); Prestwood v. McGowin, 128 Ala. 267, 274, 29 So. 386, 86 Am. St. Rep. 136; McCormick v. Marcy, 165 Cal. 386, 132 Pac. 449; Taylor v. Allen, 131 Ga. 416, 62 S. E. 291; Wood v. Kingston Coal Co., 48 Ill. 356, 95 Am. Dec. 554; Rhea v. Swain, 122 Ind. 272, 22 N. E. 1000, 23 N. E. 776; Boice v. Coffeen, 158 Ia. 705, 138 N. W. 857; Stebbins v. Wolf, 33 Kans. 765, 7 Pac. 542; Arbuthnot v. Big Pine Lumber Co., 134 La. 529, 64 So. 401; Crisfield v. Storr, 36 Md. 129, 150, 11 Am. Rep. 480; Webb v. Holt, 113 Mich. 338, 71 N. W. 637; Wagner v. Finnegan, 54 Minn. 251, 55 N. W. 1129; Allen v. Miller, 99 Miss. 75, 54 So. 731; Coleman v. Lucksinger, 224 Mo. 1, 123 S. W. 441, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 934; Diggs v. Henson, 181 Mo. App. 34, 163 S. W. 565; Holmes v. Seaman, 72 Neb. 300, 100 N. W. 417, 101 N. W. 1030; Hoffman v. Bosch, 18 Nev. 360, 4 Pac. 703; Winnipiseogee P. Co. v. Eaton, 65 N. H. 13, 18 Atl. 171; Morris v. Rowan, 17 N. J. L. 304; Hunt v. Hay, 156 N. Y. App. D. 138, 140 N. Y. S. 1070; Campbell v. Bentley, 159 N. Y. App. D. 522, 145 N. Y. S. 92; Ramsey v. Wallace, 100 N. C. 75,

83, 6 S. E. 638; Wade v. Comstock, 11 Oh. St. 71; Wetzell v. Richcreek, 53 Ohio St. 62, 73, 40 N. E. 1004; Rash v. Jenne, 26 Ore. 169, 37 Pac. 538; Allison v. Montgomery, 107 Pa. 455; Lawrance v. Robertson, 10 S. C. 8; Mengel &c. Co. v. Ferguson, 124 Tenn. 433, 137 S. W. 101; Brown v. Hearon, 66 Tex. 63, 17 S. W. 395; Coleman v. Luetcke (Tex. Civ. App.), 164 S. W. 1117; Conrad v. Effinger, 87 Va. 59, 12 S. E. 2, 24 Am. St. Rep. 646; Butcher v. Peterson, 26 W. Va. 447, 53 Am. Rep. 89; Patterson v. Cappon, 125 Wis. 198, 102 N. W. 1083.

65 Sutherland, Damages, § 614; and see cases in the preceding note.

66 Jenkins v. Jones, 9 Q. B. D. 128; Butler v. Barnes, 61 Conn. 399, 24 Atl. 328; Harrington v. Bean, 89 Me. 470, 36 Atl. 986; Cecconi v. Rodden, 147 Mass. 164, 16 N. E. 749; Farwell v. Bean, 82 Vt. 172, 72 Atl. 731.

67 Griffin v. Reynolds, 17 How. 609, 15 L. Ed. 229; Alexander v. Bridgford, 59 Ark. 195, 27 S. W. 69; Seyfried v. Knoblauch, 44 Colo. 86, 96 Pac. 993; Tone v. Wilson, 81 Ill. 529; McNally v. White, 154 Ind. 163, 172, 54 N. E. 794, 56 N. E. 214; Mischke v. Baughn, 52 Ia. 528, 3 N. W. 543; Southern W. M. & C. Co. v. Davenport, 50 La. Ann. 505, 23 So. 448; Dubay v. Kelly, 137 Mich. 345, 100 N. W. 677; Winnipiseogee P. Co. v. Eaton, 65 N. H. 13, 18 Atl. 171; Lemly v. Ellis, 146 N. C.

for total eviction the value of the land at the time of eviction naturally allow for partial eviction the value of that part of the land of which the plaintiff has been deprived.68

§ 1403. Landlord's right to rent.

71

A landlord is entitled to recover rent as it matures and not before.69 If a landlord accepts a surrender of the lease 70 or even justifiably 71 evicts the tenant, he cannot recover rent; nor can he recover damages for the loss of his lease,72 unless the lease contains a covenant giving that right.73 Where, however, the tenant abandons the property an entry and reletting by the landlord is generally held to have been made on behalf of the tenant, to mitigate the damages which he would suffer by being held liable for each instalment of rent as it matures, and the landlord is allowed to recover rent from his original tenant subject to deduction of rent received from the new tenant.74 The landlord is under no obligation to relet the premises,

221, 59 S. E. 683; Johnson v. Nyce's Exec., 17 Oh. 66, 49 Am. Dec. 444; Doyle v. Brundred, 189 Pa. 113, 41 Atl. 1107; Whitzman v. Hirsh, 87 Tenn. 513, 11 S. W. 421; Mann v. Mathews, 82 Tex. 98, 17 S. W. 927; Clarke v. Hargrove, 7 Gratt. 399; Cameron v. Burke, 61 Wash. 203, 112 Pac. 252; Butcher v. Peterson, 26 W. Va. 447, 53 Am. Rep. 89; McLennan v. Prentice, 85 Wis. 427, 442, 55 N. W. 764. See also Quick v. Walker, 125 Mo. App. 257, 102 S. W. 33.

Hubbard v. Norton, 10 Conn. 422; Cornell v. Jackson, 3 Cush. 506; Boyle v. Edwards, 114 Mass. 373. See also Olmstead v. Rawson, 188 N. Y. 517, 81 N. E. 456.

"Oliver v. Loydon, 163 Cal. 124, 124 Pac. 731; Stanley v. Turner, 68 Vt. 315, 35 Atl. 321.

Riley v. Hale, 158 Mass. 240, 245, 33 N. E. 491; Martin v. Mask, 158 N. C. 436, 74 S. E. 343, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 641.

"Watson v. Merrill, 136 Fed. 359, 69 C. C. A. 185, 69 L. R. A. 719; St. Louis Billposting Co. v. Stanton, 172

Mo. App. 40, 154 S. W. 821; Davidson v. Harris (Tex. Civ. App.), 154 S. W. 689. A fortiori if the eviction is wrongful. See supra, §§ 891, 892.

72 Re Ells, 98 Fed. 967; Bradbury v. Higginson, 162 Cal. 602, 123 Pac. 797. But see James v. Kibler's Adm., 94 Va. 165, 26 S. E. 417. And where the tenant was a corporation recovery was allowed in Kalkhoff v. Nelson, 60 Minn. 284, 62 N. W. 332; Minneapolis Baseball Co. v. City Bank, 74 Minn. 98, 76 N. W. 1024. See also Lindeke v. Associates' Realty Co., 146 Fed. 630, 640, 77 C. C. A. 56. 73 Bolles v. Crescent Drug Co., 53 N. J. Eq. 614, 32 Atl. 1061.

74 In re Mullings Clothing Co., 238 Fed. 58, 151 C. C. A. 134, L. R. A. 1918 A. 539, 252 Fed. 667; Marshall v. Grosse, etc., Co., 184 Ill. 421, 56 N. E. 807, 75 Am. St. Rep. 181; Brown v. Cairns, 107 Ia. 727, 77 N. W. 478; Brown v. Cairns, 63 Kan. 584, 66 Pac. 639; Merrill v. Willis, 51 Neb. 162, 70 N. W. 914; Scheelky v. Koch, 119 N. C. 80, 25 S. E. 713; Auer v. Pennsylvania, 99 Pa. 370,

however; he may remain inactive and sue the tenant for the rent when it matures.75

§ 1404. Covenants in leases.

For breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment a few jurisdictions still apply the early rule applicable to contracts to sell real estate,76 and if the breach of covenant is not accompanied with moral fault, but is due to a superior title, the tenant is confined to the recovery of such payments or expenses as he may have incurred. Ordinarily this will restrict him to nominal damages, unless he has already paid rent." But this rule would not be followed in most jurisdictions,78 and in any case where the landlord has actively evicted the tenant, recovery may be had at once for the value of the unexpired period of the lease; that is, the difference between the promised rent and the rental value of the term, or the difference between the contract price and the market price," together with any 44 Am. Rep. 114; Fitzgerald v. Mandas, 21 Ont. L. R. 312; cf. Riley v. Hale, 158 Mass. 240, 33 N. E. 491.

75 Rice v. Dudley, 65 Ala. 68; Respini v. Porta, 89 Cal. 464, 26 Pac. 967, 23 Am. St. Rep. 488; Hinde v. Mandansky, 161 Ill. App. 216; Merrill v. Willis, 51 Neb. 162, 70 N. W. 914; Underhill v. Collins, 132 N. Y. 269, 30 N. E. 576; Milling v. Becker, 96 Pa. 182; Goldman v. Broyles (Tex. Civ. App.), 141 S. W. 283. See also Copeland v. Stephens, 1 B. & Ald. 593; Ex parte Houghton, 1 Low. 554; Watson v. Merrill, 136 Fed. 359, 69 C. C. A. 185, 69 L. R. A. 719.

76 Supra, § 1399.

American &c. Co. v. Pocono &c. Co., 183 Fed. 193, 105 C. C. A. 625 (Pa.); Jeffers v. Easton, 113 Cal. 345, 45 Pac. 680; Kelly v. Dutch Church, 2 Hill, 105; Mack v. Patchin, 42 N. Y. 167, 1 Am. Rep. 506; Jacobs v. Schulte, 153 N. Y. App. D. 693, 138 N. Y. S. 768; Lanigan v. Kille, 97 Pa. 120, 39 Am. Rep. 797; Bartram v. Hering, 18 Pa. Supcr. 395. 78 Elliott v. Bankston, (Ala.) 45

So. 173; Griesheimer v. Botham, 105 Ill. App. 585; Riley v. Hale, 158 Mass. 240, 33 N. E. 491; Raynor v. Valentin Blatz Brewing Co., 100 Wis. 414, 76 N. W. 343. See also Nelson v. Goddard, 162 Wis. 66, 155 N. W. 943.

79 Tyson v. Chestnut, 118 Ala. 387, 405, 24 So. 73; Bromberg v. Eugenotto &c. Co., 162 Ala. 359, 50 So. 314; Wyatt v. Burdette, 43 Colo. 208, 95 Pac. 336; Bass v. West, 110 Ga. 698, 36 S. E. 244; Dobbins v. Duquid, 65 Ill. 464; Riley v. Hale, 158 Mass. 240, 33 N. E. 491; Grove v. Youell, 110 Mich. 285, 68 N. W. 132, 33 L. R. A. 297; Shutt v. Lockner, 77 Neb. 397, 109 N. W. 383; Clarkson v. Skidmore, 46 N. Y. 297; Williamson v. Stevens, 84 N. Y. App. D. 518, 82 N. Y. S. 1047; Sloan v. Hart, 150 N. C. 269, 63 S. E. 1037, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 239, 134 Am. St. Rep. 911; Rhodes v. Baird, 16 Oh. St. 573; Amsden v. Atwood, 69 Vt. 527, 38 Atl. 263; Poposkey v. Munkwitz, 68 Wis. 322, 32 N. W. 35, 60 Am. Rep. 858.

consequential damages which fall within the general principles governing the allowance of such damages. On breach of a covenant by the landlord to repair, the tenant may make the repairs himself and recover the reasonable expense of so doing.81 If the tenant does not make the repairs himself, the ordinary measure of damages is the difference in the rental value of the premises without the promised repairs and with them.82 If, however, the repairs involve slight expense, the measure of damages in such a case may properly be the expense of making the repairs. If a few window panes are broken in a house in a northern latitude, the rental value of the premises kept in that condition might be very slight, but the measure of a tenant's damage if his landlord broke a covenant in the lease to repair, could hardly be based on this diminished rental value, but rather on the expense of making the repairs.83 And if the premises cannot be used until the repairs are made, the value for this period may also be recovered.84 Other consequential damages may also be recovered if brought within the general principles governing such damage; but damages for injury to the tenant or his property from continued failure to make repairs cannot

Tamblyn v. Johnston, 126 Fed. 267, 62 C. C. A. 601; Kjelsberg v. Chilberg, 177 Fed. 109, 100 C. C. A. 529; Gray v. Linton, 38 Colo. 175 88 Pac. 749; Taylor v. Cooper, 104 Mich. 72, 62 N. W. 157. See as to breach of covenant as to part of the leased premises, Irwin v. Noble, 176 Pa. 594, 35 Atl. 217, 35 L. R. A. 415.

1 Young v. Berman, 96 Ark. 78, 131 S. W. 62, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 977; Ross v. Stockwell, 19 Ind. App. 86, 49 N. E. 50; Rutland v. Dayton, 60 Ill. 58; Reiner v. Jones, 38 N. Y. App. Div. 441; Ward v. Kelsey, 42 Barb. 582; McCardell v. Williams, 19 R. I. 701, 36 Atl. 719.

Bien v. Hess, 102 Fed. 436, 42 C. C. A. 421; Young v. Berman, 96 Ark. 78, 131 S. W. 62, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 977; Rubens v. Hill, 213 Ill. 523, 72 N. E. 1127; Leick v. Tritz, 94 Iowa, 322, 62 N. W. 855; Miller #. Sullivan, 77 Kans. 252, 94 Pac.

266, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 737; Biggs v. McCurley, 76 Md. 409, 25 Atl. 466; Godfrey v. India Wharf B. Co., 87 N. Y. App. Div. 123, 84 N. Y. S. 90; Sanger v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.), 135 S. W. 189; Kellogg v. Malick, 125 Wis. 239, 103 N. W. 1116; Brown v. Toronto General Hospital, 23 Ont. 599.

83 Young v. Berman, 96 Ark. 78, 131 S. W. 62, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 977; Aikin v. Perry, 119 Ga. 263, 46 S. E. 93; Torres v. Starke, 132 La. 1045, 62 So. 137; Biggs v. McCurley, 76 Md. 409, 415, 25 Atl. 466; Caves v. Bartek, 85 Neb. 511, 513, 123 N. W. 1031; and cases cited infra, n. 85.

84 Birch v. Clifford, 8 T. L. Rep. 103 (action by landlord on tenant's covenant); Young v. Berman, 96 Ark. 78, 131 S. W. 62, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 977; Biggs v. McCurley, 76 Md. 409, 25 Atl. 466; Hexter v. Knox, 63 N. Y. 561.

ordinarily be recovered because under the rule of avoidable consequences the tenant should have made the repairs himself and recovered their cost from the landlord.85 But where the tenant in justifiable reliance on the landlord's promise to repair has suffered consequential injury which was a natural and probable consequence of the landlord's unexpected default, damages for the injury may be recovered. For breach of other covenants of landlord or tenant, the ordinary principles of the law of damages will generally furnish a sufficient guide.

§ 1405. Contract to give a lease.

86

Jurisdictions which deny to one who has contracted for the purchase of real estate other relief against a vendor free from moral fault than a restoration of any payments and expenses which may have been incurred,87 would apply the same rule to a contract to give a lease; 88 but "where under such a contract the lessor has prevented the lessee from entering and occupying the leased premises, or where an owner of property has broken his agreement to give a lease thereof to a prospective tenant, the measure of damages in an action for this breach of contract, if no rent has been paid and if nothing further appears, is the difference between the actual value of the leasehold estate that should have been enjoyed and the agreed rental that was to have been paid therefor.89 This value, as in all cases in which

85 Collins v. Karatopsky, 36 Ark. 316, 329; Reinking v. Goodell, 161 Ia. 404, 133 N. W. 774, 143 N. W. 573; Campbell v. Miltenberger, 26 La. Ann. 72; Leavitt v. Fletcher, 10 Allen, 119; Flynn v. Trask, 11 Allen, 550; Tuttle v. Gilbert Mfg. Co., 145 Mass. 169, 13 N. E. 465; Reiner v. Jones, 38 N. Y. App. D. 441, 56 N. Y. S. 423; Goldberg v. Besdine, 76 N. Y. App. D. 451, 78 N. Y. S. 776; Cantrell v. Fowler, 32 S. C. 589, 10 S. E. 934; Brown v. Toronto General Hospital, 23 Ont. 599.

86 Culver v. Hill, 68 Ala. 66, 44 Am. Rep. 134; Miller v. Sullivan, 77 Kans. 252, 94 Pac. 266, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 737; Phillips v. Ehrmann, 8 N. Y. Misc. 39, 28 N. Y. S. 519; Blumenthal v. Prescott, 70 N. Y. App. Div. 560, 75

N. Y. S. 710; Parker v. Meadows, 86
Tenn. 181, 6 S. W. 49.

87 See supra, § 1399.

88 Noyes v. Anderson, 1 Duer, 342, and see cases in the preceding section, n. 77.

89 Neal v. Jefferson, 212 Mass. 517, 522, 99 N. E. 334, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 387, Ann. Cas. 1913 D. 205, citing Jewett v. Brooks, 134 Mass. 505; Riley v. Hale, 158 Mass. 240, 33 N. E. 491; Dodds v. Hakes, 114 N. Y. 260, 21 N. E. 398; Giles v. O'Toole, 4 Barb. 261; Denison v. Ford, 10 Daly, 412; Cilley v. Hawkins, 48 Ill. 308; Bernhard v. Curtis, 75 Conn. 476, 54 Atl. 213; Leslie E. Brooks Co. v. Long, 67 Fla. 68, 64 So. 452; Favar v. Riverview Park, 144 Ill. App. 86; Skinner v.