A lease for a term exceeding the period prescribed by the statute against perpetuities is not void on that account, as it does not suspend the power of alienation; Gomez v. Gomez, 81 Hun 566, 31 N. Y. Supp. 206.
The formal parts of a lease by deed are : First, the date, which will fix the time for its commencement, unless some other period is specified in the instrument itself for that purpose ; Keyes v. Dearborn, 12 N. H. 52; Styles v. Wardle, 4 B. & C. 908 ; but if there is no date, or an impossible one, the time will be considered as having commenced from the delivery of the deed ; id.; Jackson v. Schoonmaker, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 230.
Second, the names of the parties, with re spect to which the law knows but one Chris tian name; and therefore the middle letter of the name of either party is immaterial, and a person may always show he is as well known by one name as another ; this is the rule as to deeds generally ; Games v. Stiles, 14 Pet. (U. S.) 322, 10 L. Ed. 476"; Lyon v. Kain, 36 Ill. 362 ; and it is applied in the case of a lease; Tayl. L. & T. § 149. The entire omission of the lessee's name from a lease will render the instrument simply void ; Jackson v. Titus, 2 Johns. (N.. Y.) 430 ; Taylor, L. & T. § 149, where many cases are cited, but only showing the rule as to deeds generally which applies also to leases. In West Virginia one whose name is not men tioned in the body of a lease is not a party to it or bound by it as a grantor, although he signs and acknowledges it as his deed ; Barnsdall v. Boley, 119 Fed. 191. When one partner signed the name of both and the firm entered under the lease, it was held a parol ratification; Holbrook v. Chamberlin, 116 Mass. 155, 17 Am. Rep. 146.
Third, recitals of title or other circum stances of the case (though not usual in practice).
Fourth„ some consideration must appear, although it need not be what is technical ly called rent, or a periodical render of compensation for the use of the premises; Failing v. Schenck, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 344; State v. Page, 1 Speers (S. C.) 408, 40 Am. Dec. 608; but it may be a sum in gross, or the natural affection which one party has for the other. It may also consist of grain, ani mals, or the personal services of the lessee; Tayl. L. & T. § 152 et seg.; or a promise to pay rent; McFarlane v. Williams, 107 Ill. 33; and when the lease does not stipulate for the cessation of rent upon the destruc tion of the building by fire, or that the les sor shall repair, a tenant is not relieved from the payment of rent by a partial de struction of the building ; Cook & Co. v. An
derson, 85 Ala. 99, 4 South. 713. See LAND LORD AND TENANT. An agreement that the occupation is to be rent free may be inferred from the circumstances attending its incep tion; Sherwin v. Lasher, 9 Ill. App. 227; and a written acknowledgment that one holds as tenant raises no presumption of a promise to pay rent ; Savings Bank v. Getch ell, 59 N. H. 281. Where there is no com pensation mentioned to be paid for the use and occupation of the premises, the landlord should be allowed what it is reasonably worth; Scrantom v. Booth, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 171.
Fifth, the operative words of a lease are usually "demise, grant, lease, and to farm let." The use of the term "demise" in a lease imports covenants of good right and title to make the lease and for quiet enjoy ment ; Crouch v. Fowfe, 9 N. H. 219, 32 Am. Dec. 350, with an extended note on implied covenants of title, in which are collected many cases on the covenants for title, im plied from the words "demise, concessi, or the like," said to have been recognized from the earliest times; Rawle, Coy. 461.
Sixth, the description of the premises need not specify all the particulars of the subject matter of the demise, for the accessories will follow the principal thing named: thus, the garden is parcel of a dwelling-house, and the general description of a farm in cludes all the houses and lands appertaining to the farm ; Bennet v. Bittle, 4 Rawle (Pa.) 339; or machinery in a building used for its operation ; Thropp v. Field, 26 N. J. Eq. 82; Lanpher v. Glenn, 37 Minn. 4, 33 N. W. 10; or which is necessary to its enjoyment; Chesebrough v. Pingree, 72 Mich. 438, 40 N. W. 747, 1 L. R. A. 529; or a lease of land includes the buildings on it ; Isham v. Mor gan, 9 Conn. 374, 23 Am. Dec. 361. But whether certain premises are parcel of the demise or not is always matter of evidence; Smith v. McCallister, 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 434; Trimble's Heirs v. Ward, 14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 8 ; 2 B. & C. 608, where it was queried wheth er evidence dehors the lease was admissible, although the question was not necessary to be decided.