his own act or fault, his crops belong to the landlord. Carpenter v. Jones, 63 Ill. 517; Debow v. Colfax, 5 Halst. 128; Bulwer v. Bulwer, 2 B. & Ald. 470; Davis v. Eyton, 7 Bing. 154. But that will not affect the rights of undertenants who did not participate in destroying the estate. Bevan v. Briscoe, 4 Har. & J. (Md.) 139. A tenant who is evicted may hold as emblements crops growing on the premises which were put in by his servant. Kenna v. Nugent, 7 Ir. R. C. L. 464.

A lessee of land which is incumbered by a prior judgment is entitled to the way growing crop in preference to the execution purchaser (Adams v. MeKesson's Exr., 53 Penn. St. 81); but one who takes a lease subsequent to a mortgage has been held not entitled as against the mortgagee, to the crops growing at the time of the foreclosure and sale (Lane v. King, 8 Wend. 584; Shepard v. Philbrich, 2 Den. 174; Sherman v. Willett, 42 N. Y. [3 Hand] 146); and one who sows grain pending a suit for possession against his landlord cannot take away the crop after judgment and surrender of possession. in favor of the plaintiff. Rowell v. Klein, 44 Ind. 290.

If a tenant dies after sowing grain, the emblements go to his personal representatives, or if the land sown is assigned as dower, then to his widow.

A tenant at will is entitled to emblements, and evidence respecting their value is competent in an action against the owner of the land for their recovery. Reilly v. Ringland, 44 Iowa, 422.

§ 2. Fixtures. The nature of fixtures and the rules applicable to them have been so fully explained in the chapter devoted to that subject (ante, Vol. 3, 368), that but little need be added here. Fixtures may be briefly defined as articles of a personal nature, so affixed to real property as to constitute a part thereof. Removable fixtures, which alone require attention here, are things attached to a dwellinghouse, to render the occupation thereof more pleasant, comfortable or convenient, also engines, machinery and other things for use in trade or manufacturing, and, to some extent, buildings for the purposes of trade or agriculture. The term also includes trees and shrubbery planted for the purpose of sale, by gardeners and nurserymen, but not those raised by other persons for their own use. Brooks v. Galster, 51 Barb. 196; Wyndham v. Way, 4 Taunt. 316. The essential thing is, that they be capable of removal without destroying or seriously injuring the freehold, or leaving it in a worse condition than it was before their annexation. Whiting v. Brastow, 4 Pick. 311. When the question arises whether they are so or not, it is one for a jury to decide.

This right to remove fixtures is conceded to tenants for life, for years, or at will; and the rules in relation to it, though very strict as between grantors and grantees, are to be construed with the greatest liberality in favor of tenants. Ombony v. Jones, 19 N. Y. (5 Smith) 234; Tate v. Blackburne, 48 Miss. 1. A tenant for life, however, cannot remove buildings of a permanent character. Cannon v. Hare, 1 Tenn. Ch. 22. The right may be enlarged or varied by special agreement between the parties, or by the local customs of the country. In the absence of any such agreement or custom, the removal must be made by the tenant before the expiration of his term, or at least before he quits possession, and while he has a right to consider himself a tenant under the original lease. Lyde v. Russell, 1 B. & Ad. 394; Fitzherbert v. Shaw, 1 H. Bl. 258; White v. Arndt, 1 Whart. 91; Preston v. Briggs, 16 Vt. 124; Reynolds v. Shuler, 5 Cow. 323; Haflick v. Stober, 11 Ohio St. 482; Dostal v. McCaddon, 35 Iowa, 318; Cromie v. Hoover, 40 Ind. 49. If he leaves them on the premises with the landlord's consent, he may afterward remove them; but generally they are deemed abandoned and fall to the landlord if there when he takes possession. Hallen v. Runder, 3 Tyr. 959; McCracken v. Hall, 7 Ind. 30.

Exceptions to this rule as to time of removal are made in favor of lessees holding by an uncertain tenure, as, for life, at will, or until the happening of some event, and of those leasing for the purpose of nurturing trees and plants until ready to be transplanted; and they are allowed a reasonable time to remove after the termination of their interest. Weeton v. Woodcock, 7 M. & W. 14; Lawton v. Lawton, 3 Atk. 13; Northern Cent. Co. v. Canton Co., 30 Md. 347; Miller v. Baker, 1 Metc. (Mass.) 27; King v. Wilcomb, 7 Barb. 263.

The right to remove also ceases on forfeiture, or re-entry for condition broken (Whipley v. Dewey, 8 Cal. 36); and even upon a renewal of the lease, without reserving fixtures already annexed. Shepard v. Spaulding, 4 Metc. 416; Merritt v. Judd, 14 Cal. 59; Davis v. Moss, 38 Penn. St. 346; Loughran v. Ross, 45 N. Y. (6 Hand) 792; 6 Am. Rep. 173.

If the landlord claims the fixtures and forbids their removal, threatening suit, the lessee may leave them, and treat the landlord's acts as a conversion. Vilas v. Mason, 25 Wis. 310.

If by the terms of his lease the tenant is to be deemed the owner of buildings erected by him, he may either sell or remove them. (Alexander v. Touhy, 13 Kans. 64); and if it is stipulated that he may remove such buildings at the expiration of his term, he is entitled to a reasonable time afterward in which to do it. Cheatham v. Plinke, 1 Tenn. Ch.

576. But if he expressly covenants to repair and to yield up buildings erected by him, he is bound by such covenant. Naylor v. Col linge, 1 Taunt. 19.

ARTICLE IX.

RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES IN GENERAL.

Section 1. In general. Numerous rights and liabilities grow out of the relation between the parties to a lease, not depending upon express covenants. Among these are the landlord's right to rent, already considered, and his right to enter upon the premises, and to use all ways appurtenant in so doing. Thus, he may enter for the purpose of demanding rent or arranging for its payment, or the purpose of repairing to prevent waste, or of removing an obstruction; but he has no right to enter for other purposes without the consent of the tenant unless he has reserved it. Proud v. Hollis, 1 B. & C. 8; Lehman v. Shackleford, 50 Ala. 437; Blake v. Jerome, 14 Johns. 406. Where the rent is payable in hay, he has no right to enter and take it away, until it is severed and delivered to or set apart for him. Dockham v. Parker, 9 Me. 137. And replevin will not lie at the suit of a landlord against his tenant for rent wheat left in the barn, on the premises by the preceding tenant, for the landlord, as his share of the preceding year, without proof of an actual demand and refusal before action brought. Alrichs v. Bowers, 3 Houst. (Del.) 367.

At the expiration of the lease, the landlord is entitled to full possession, and if it is not delivered, he can hold the tenant for the rent. Noel v. McCrory, 7 Coldw. (Tenn.) 623.

The liabilities of a landlord, founded on his possession, are, in general, suspended as soon as the tenant takes possession. He is not therefore liable for injuries to third parties, 'caused by the ruinous state of the premises, or of the fences on them. Cheetham v. Hampson, 4 Term, 318; Mayor, &c., v. Corlies, 2 Sandf. 301. And see Batterman v. Finn, 32 How. (N. Y.) 501. It is otherwise if he has covenanted to repair, or the injury is caused by the negligence of workmen employed by him. Payne v. Rogers, 2 H. Bl. 350; Leslie v. Pounds, 4 Taunt. 649.

He is not liable to his tenant for personal injuries sustained by reason of the defective condition of the buildings, unless he is chargeable with some affirmative misfeasance, or neglect of positive duty or breach of covenant to repair. O'Brien v. Capwell, 59 Barb. 497; Kahn v. Love, 3 Oreg. 206. Nor is he liable to a third person for a nuisance

created or continued on the premises by his tenant, unless he knew or had reason to believe at the time of the letting that it would be so created; but if he re-lets, or renews a lease while the nuisance exists there, he is liable. Rex v. Pedley, 1 A. & E. 827; Waggoner v. Jermaine, 3 Denio, 306; Pickard v. Collins, 23 Barb. 444. The contrary is held in Georgia. Center v. Davis, 39 Ga. 210. See post, tit. Nuisance.

The lessor is not liable for a nuisance to a highway on the premises, existing at the time of the demise, if the lessee is under obligation to repair. Gwinnell v. Eamer, L. R., 10 C. P. 658; 14 Eng. Rep. 492; S. C., 32 L. T. (N. S.) 835. Nor is he liable to his tenant for damages caused by the existence of noxious plants on agricultural lands leased by him, nor for damages caused by noxious animals. Erskine v. Adeane, L. R., 8 Ch. App. 756; S. C., 6 Eng. R. 594; 42 L. J. Ch. 835; Carstairs v. Taylor, L. R., 6 Exch. 217; S. C., 40 L. J. Exch. 129.

Upon the execution of the lease, and before the tenant takes possession, whether it is to commence at once or not, the tenant acquires an interest, which is assignable and will on his death pass to his personal representatives. Whitney v. Allaire, 1 N. Y. (1 Comst.) 305. This interest extends to the whole of the premises leased, and he is not bound to accept part, but may abandon if not put in possession of the whole. Hay v. Cumberland, 25 Barb. 594. But if he enters and retains possession of part, he is liable for the rent pro tanto. Hurlbut v. Post, 1 Bosw. (N. Y.) 28. If before the day named for his receiving possession the landlord renders the dwelling unfit for habitation, by wrongfully removing a fixture, the tenant may refuse to accept possession. Cleves v. Willoughby, 7 Hill, 83. And he is not liable on his lease if the premises are destroyed by fire before the term begins. Wood v. Hubbell, 10 N. Y. (6 Seld.) 488.

On taking possession, he is entitled to use and enjoy all the easements and privileges which are appurtenant to the tenement, and also to take such reasonable estovers and emblements as are attached to the estate, unless specially restrained by his lease. A tenant for years of a farm has the right to cut wood thereon for his own fires and for repairs. Hubbard v. Shaw, 12 Allen, 120.

If the leased buildings are pulled down by public authority, the tenant is entitled to compensation from the public for his interest therein, in the same cases where the owner would be for his interest. Mayor of N. Y. v. Lord, 17 Wend. 285; 18 id. 126.

He can sell or mortgage his crops (Jones v. Webster, 48 Ala. 109); and his creditors can sell his term on execution. Ex parte Wilson, 7 Hill, 150.

VOL. IV.-33

It is the duty of a tenant to protect the rights of his landlord, and` he has no right to attorn to a stranger unless by his landlord's consent, or pursuant to a judgment or order of court, or to a mortgagee after forfeiture, but he is bound to notify his landlord of any attempt to dispossess him. This duty is, in some of the States, enforced by statutory penalties. He must also preserve the boundaries of the demised premises (Att'y-General v. Fullerton, 2 Ves. & B. 263); and must discharge all the duties imposed on the premises by municipal authority. And he must not disturb the possession of his landlord's other tenants. Keay v. Goodwin, 16 Mass. 3; Browning v. Delesme, 3 Sandf. (N. Y.) 13.

The tenant's liability for rent has already been stated. This liability is not discharged by the destruction of the premises after he has taken possession, unless there are covenants to that effect. Fowler v. Payne, 49 Miss. 32.

He is liable on the covenants of his lease, even though he does not take possession, and any person who enters by his consent is liable on them in his place. Howard v. Ellis, 4 Sandf. (N. Y.) 369. He is also liable to his landlord for any injury to the premises caused by his carelessness or negligence; but if he is only one of several tenants of the same building, his liability is limited to his own negligence, unless they have made themselves jointly liable. Moore v. Goedel, 34 N. Y. (7 Tiff.) 527.

A tenant is also liable to third parties for injuries caused by his neglect to keep the premises in a safe condition, as, by not repairing ways, fences, or party walls, by not properly covering or protecting walls, trap doors, excavations, sewers and holes; by not guarding against accidents when building, and the like, and for those caused by his obstructing highways, streets, and walks, or creating or continuing nuisances on the premises. Commonwealth v. Passmore, 1 Serg. & R. 217; Rex v. Russell, 6 East, 427; Rider v. Smith, 3 Term, 766; Coupland v. Hardingham, 3 Camp. 398; Hadley v. Taylor, 11 Jur. (N. S.) 979; S. C., 14 W. R. 59; Proctor v. Harris, 4 C. & P. 337; Norton v. Wiswall, 26 Barb. 618; Lowell v. Spald ing, 4 Cush. 277.

§ 2. Disputing landlord's title. It is a It is a general rule that both tenants and their privies in blood or estate are estopped from disputing the title of the landlord or of any one who succeeds to his rights, so long as they hold the possession originally derived from him. Bertram v. Cook, 32 Mich. 518; Hughes v. Watt, 28 Ark. 153; Cook v. Creswell, 44 Md. 581; Brenner v. Bigelow, 8 Kans. 497; Mattis v. Robinson, 1 Neb. 3; Frazer v. Robinson, 42 Miss. 121; Hardy v.