The tenant's general obligation to repair also renders him responsible for any injury a stranger may sustain by his neglect to keep the premises in a safe condition; as, by not keeping the covers of his vaults suffi ciently closed, so that a person walking in the street falls through, or is injured there by. If he repairs or improves the building, he must guard against accident to the pass ers-by in the street, by erecting a suitable barricade, or stationing a person there to give notice of the danger ; Althorf v. Wolfe, 22 N. Y. 366 ; L. R. 2 C. P. 311; L. R. 5 Q. B. 501. For any unreasonable obstruction which he places in the highway adjoining his premises, he may be indicted for causing a public nuisance, as well as rendered liable to an action for damages, at the suit of any'in dividual injured. Nor may the tenant keep dangerous animals on the premises ; Buckley v. Leonard, 4 Den. (N. Y.) 500; Coggswell v. Baldwin, 15 Vt. 404, 40 Am. Dec. 686. At common law, if a fire began in a dwelling house and spread to neighboring buildings, the tenant of the house where the fire' began was liable in damages to all whose property was injured. But by a statute of Queen Anne, amended by stat. 14 Geo. III. c. 78, this right of action has been taken away. The statute is generally re-enacted in the United States ; vide Tayl. L. & T. § 196.
The tenant's chief duty, however, is the payment of rent, the amount of which is ei ther fixed by the terms of the lease, or, in the absence 'of an express agreement, is such a reasonable compensation for the occupation of the premises as they are fairly worth. If there has been no particular agreement be tween the 'parties, the tenant pays rent only for the time he has had the beneficial enjoy ment of the premises; but if he has entered into an express agreement to pay rent during the term, no casualty or injury to the prem ises by fire or otherwise, nothing, in fact, short of an eviction, will excuse him from such payment ; Gates v. Greed, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 355, 27 Am. Dec. 68 ; Barrett v. Boddie, 158 Ill. 479, 42 N. E. 143, 49 Am. St. Rep. 172; Wagner v. White, 4 Har. & J. (Md.) 564 ; 10 M. & W. 321; Fowler v. Bott, 6 Mass. 63. The same rule applies when the rent is paid in advance ; Diamond v. Harris, 33 Tex. 634 ; Cross v. Button, 4 Wis. 468; or the lessor has collected Insurance money and refuses to rebuild after destruction of the premises ; Bussman v. Ganster, 72 Pa. 285 ; and a guar antor of the lessee is likewise held ; Kings bury v. Westfall, 61 N. Y. 356.
In England the same applies where the tenant has only part of a house ; Izon v. Gorton, 5 Bing. N. C. 501; and also Kentucky; Helburn v. Mofford, 7 Bush (Ky.) 169; but It Is not the rule generally in this country ; Kerr v. Exch. Co., 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 315; Winton v. Cornish, 5 Ohio 477 ; Mc Millan v. Solomon, 42 Ala. 356, 94 Am. Dec. 654; though the rent was paid in advance ; Shawmut Nat. Bank v. Boston, 118 Mass. 125; Ainsworth m. Ritt, 38 Cal. 89. In South Carolina the rule as to liability for rent is otherwise ; Bayly v. Lawrence, 1 Bay (S. C.) 499; Ripley v. Wightman, 4 McCord (S. C.) 447; and so it is in Louisiana, where also if the premises are destroyed or become un tenantable the lease is determined ; Coleman v. Haight, 14 La. Ann. 564 ; Meyers v. Hen derson, 49 La. Ann. 1547, 16 South. 729. In New York the same result is effected by stat ute; Fleischman v. Toplitz, 134 N. Y. 349, 31 N. E. 1089 ; and in Washington when the building is destroyed by fire ; Porter v. Tull, 6 Wash. 408, 33 Pac. 965, 22 L. R. A. 613, 36 Am. St. Rep. 172.
It has been said that an eviction must be by process of law in order to release the tenant from payment of rent ; Greenby Wilcocks, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 1, 3 Am. Dec. 379 ;
but this has been characterized as a dictum and it is now generally held otherwise ; Greenvault v. Davis, 4 Hill (N. Y.) 643; Ed mison v. Lowry, 3 S. D. 77, 52 N. W. 583, 17 L. R. A. 275, 44 Am. St. Rep. 774 ; Green v. Irving, 54 Miss. 450, 28 Am. Rep. 360. An eviction, however actually enforced, consti tutes a good excuse from payment ; Hein rich v. Mack, 25 Misc. 597, 56 N. Y. Supp. 155; Royce v. Guggenheim, 106 Mass. 201, 8 Ain. Rep. 322 ; Barnes v. Bellamy, 44 U. C. Q. B. 303 ; but there must 'be an eviction in good faith and not by collusion ; Mattoon v. Munroe, 21 Hun (N. Y.) 74. And if he has been deprived of his tenancy by the act, omis sion or agency of the landlord either on the rented or adjoining property, he is discharg ed from payment of rent ; Leopold v. Jud son, 75 Ill. 536 ; Colburn v. Morrill, 117 Mass. 262, 19 Am. Rep. 415 ; Poston v. Jones, '37 N. C. 350, 38 Am. Dec. 683 ; Upton v. Townsend, 17 C. B. 30 (a leading case on what amounts to eviction) ; Conlon v. Mc Graw, 66 Mich. 194, 33 N. W. 388. So the tenant Is discharged from payment of rent by an ouster under a paramount title; Blair v. Claxton, 18 N. Y. 529 ; University of Ver mont v. Joslyn, 21 Vt. 52.
What amounts to eviction is a difficult question to answer generally and must be determined by the facts of each case. Ac tual force is not necessary ; Tallman v. Mur phy, 120 N. Y. 345, 24 N. E. 716; but it in cludes any wrongful act of the lessor which results in an entire or partial interference with the tenant's occupation and enjoyment ; Oakford v. Nixon, 177 Pa. 76, 35 Atl. 588, 34 L. R. A. 575. The eviction may be construc tive and, if by the bona fide assertion of a paramount title, the lessee may yield with out waiting for force and his attornment or purchase without change of possession will be sufficient as an eviction; Moore v. Vail, 17 Ill. 190 ; Loomis v. Bedel, 11 N. H. 74 ; Hol brook v. Young, 108 Mass. 83 ; but an attorn ment must be shown ; Hawes v. Shaw, 100 'Mass. 187. If, however, part only of the premises be recovered by paramount title, the rent is apportioned, and the tenant re mains liable in proportion to the part from which it has not been evicted; Woodf. L. & T.1115 ; 2 East 575 ; Carter v. Burr, 39 Barb. (N. Y.) 59; Leishman v. White, 1 Allen (Mass.) 489. See RENT. A tenant's liability for rent is not affected by condemnation of part of the demised premises ; Stubbings v. Village of Evanston, 136 Ill. 37, 26 N. E. 577, 11 L. R. A. 839, 29 Am. St. Rep. 300; but it ceases where the estate in the entire prem ises is extinguished ; Corrigan v. City of Chicago, 144 Ill. 537, 33 N. E. 746, 21 L. R. A. 212; it amounts to eviction by paramount right ; id. Where upper rooms or an apart ment are rented and the building is destroyed by fire the tenancy is terminated there being no interest in the soil so as to rebuild; Graves v. Berdan, 26 N. Y. 498; contra, Izen v. Gorton, 5 Bing. N. C. 501. The erection of a building on an adjoining lot causing dep rivation of light and ventilation and damp ness was not an eviction of the tenant of a room in an office building ; Hilliard v. Coal Co., 41 Ohio St. 662, 52 Am. Rep. 99 ; but the common law rule requiring the tenant, under a covenant to repair, to rebuild in case of fire was held not in force and where the premises were destroyed by a hurricane the rent may be apportioned ; Wattles v. Coal Co., 50 Neb. 251, 69 N. W. 785, 36 L. R. A. 424, 61 Am. St. Rep. 554. A lessee of a saloon must continue to pay rent after the passage of a prohibition law ; O'Byrne v. Henley, 161 Ala. 620, 50 South. 83, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 496.