Landlord and Tenant

lease, wall, supp, co, land, building and advertising

Prev | Page: 11 12 13 14

The tenant has a reasonable right of egress and regress for the purpose of removing his goods and chattels ; 2 Bla. Com. 14; Moore v. Boyd, 24 Me. 242; L. R. 5 C. P. 334.. He may, also, in certain cases, take such estovers as are attached to the estate and the emble meats or annual profits of the land after his tenancy is ended, as to which his rights are largely affected by local customs (see Es TOVERS ; EMBLEMENTS ) ; Gardner v. Lanford, 86 Ala. 508, 5 South. 879;. Bradley v. Bailey, 56 Conn. 374, 15 Atl. 746, 1 L. R. A. 427, 7 Am. St. Rep. 316 ; but a tenant for years is not entitled to them ; Gossett v. Drydale, 48 Mo. App. 430; nor where the landlord re enters and takes possession because of the failure of the tenant to pay rent; Gregg v. Boyd, 69 Hun (N. Y.) 588, 23 N. Y. Supp. 918 ; and, unless restricted by some stipula tion to the contrary, may remove such fix tures as he has erected during his occupa tion for his comfort and convenience, par ticularly if for trade purposes. As between landlord and tenant, whatever is affixed to the land by the tenant for the purpose of trade, whether it be made of wood or brick, is removable at the end of the term; Wig gins Ferry Co. v. Ry. Co., 142 U. S. 396, 12 Sup. Ct. 188, 35 L. Ed. 1055 ; Friedland v. Myers, 139 N. Y. 432, 34 N. E. 1055. See FIXTURES.

Advertising. An, agreement to permit the erection of a wooden sign on vacant land, not to touch or be fastened to the wall of the house, is a license; Wilson v. Tavener, [1901] 1 Ch. 578; but an agreement to give the use of the roof of a building which in volves the erection and maintenance of a wooden structure upon it, is a lease and not a license; Poeber v. Hall, 50 Misc. 639, 98 N. Y. Supp. 754 ; and so is the hiring of the outer wall for such purpose; Oakford v. Nirdlinger, 196 Pa. 162, 46 Atl. 374 ; but an agreement by a lessee to permit a third per son, for an annual sum, to hang a sign on the outer wall, was held a license ; Lowell v. Strahan, 145 Mass. 1, 12, 13, 12 N. E. 401, 1 Am. St. Rep. 422; and it was not a breach of a covenant not to underlet ; id.

A tenant from month to month cannot lease the wall of the building for advertising purposes ; Louisville Gunning System v. Parks, 126 Ky. 532, 104 S. W. 331, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 587; or the roof ; 0. J. Gude Co. v. Farley, 28 Misc. 184, 58 N. Y. Supp. 1036; though he has a right to sublet other por tions of the building ; id. Where there is a lease of the wall of a building to an ad vertising company, the tenant could be held liable for holding over because of failure to obliterate the advertisement at the expira tion of the specified period of occupancy ; Goldman v. Advertising Co., 29 Misc. 133, 60 N. Y. Supp. 275. The advertiser is not liable . for injuries caused by the sign board's blow ing down; Reynolds v. Van Beuren, 155 N. Y. 120, 123, 49 N. E. 763, 42 L. R. A. 129. See Underhill, Land. & Ten. 288, § 204.

The ordinary common-law remedy by which a landlord proceeds to recover the possession of his premises is by an action of ejectment, and in these cases it is a general rule that the tenant is never permitted, for reasons of sound public policy, to contro vert his landlord's title, or to set up against him a title acquired by himself during his tenancy which is hostile In its character to that which he acknowledged in accepting the demise. The authorities for this rule and the exceptions to it are fully stated supra.

But the slow and measured progress of the action of ejectment in most cases affords a very inadequate remedy to the landlord ; and in order, therefore, to obviate the evils arising from its delays, the statutes of the different states provide a summary proceed-, ing, by which a landlord may be speedily reinstated, upon short notice, in cases where a tenant abandons the premises before the end of the term without surrendering the lease, leaving rent in arrear, or continues to hold over after the expiration of his term, or has become unable or unwilling to pay rent for•the use of the premises ; Stratton v. Lord, 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 611; Tayl. L. & T. § 713.

See LEASE; DISTRESS; ADVERSE POSSES SION.

Prev | Page: 11 12 13 14