Seventh, the rights and liabilities of the respective parties are regulated by law in the absence of any particular agreement in respect thereto ; but express covenants are usually inserted in a lease, for the purpose of limiting or otherwise defining their rights and duties in relation to repairs, taxes, in surance renewals, residence on ,the premises, modes of cultivation, fixtures, and the like. Certain covenants are also implied in law from the use of certain technical terms in leases. For example there is an implied covenant that the lessee shall have a right of entry at the time set by the lease as the beginning of the term; Herpolsheimer v. Christopher, 76 Neb. 352, 107 N. W. 382, 111 N. W. 359, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1127, 14 Ann. Cas. 399. The intention of the parties to a lease must be gathered from the instrument taken as a whole. Upper Appomattox Coun ty y. Hamilton, 83 Va. 319, 2 S. E. 195.
Termination. Leases are terminated in various cases, as to which see, at large, LANDLORD AND TENANT. The death of a life tenant of real estate terminates his subten ant's right of possession; Edghill v. MankeY, 79 Neb. 347, 112 N. W. 570, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 688.
In every well-drawn lease, provision is made for a forfeiture of the term in ease the tenant refuses to pay rent, commits waste, or is guilty of a breach of the cove nant to repair, insure, reside upon the prem ises, or the like. This clause enables the lessor or his assigns to re-enter in any such event upon the demised premises and eject the tenant, leaving both parties in the same condition as if the lease were a nullity ; but in the absence of a proviso for re-entry the lessor would possess no such power, the mere breach of a covenant enabling him to sue for damages only ; Brown v. Kite, 2 Overton (Tenn.) 233; Den v. Post, 25 N. J. L. 285; Fox v. Brissac, 15 Cal. 223; and if he does so enter and eject the tenant, the latter may recover damages for vegetables and fruit on the land and planted by him; id. The provision for re-entry for condition broken can operate only during the term and the right vanishes when that ends; Johns v. Whitley, 3 Wils. 127.
The forfeiture will generally be enforced by the courts, except where the landlord's damages are a mere matter of computation and Can be readily compensated by money ; Jackson v. Brownson, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 227, 5 Am. Dec. 258; Bracebridge v. Buckley, 2 Price 200. One condition essential to the forfeiture of a lease by the lessor is a de mand of the rent ; Henderson v. Coke Co.,
140 U. S. 25, 11 Sup. Ct. 691, 35 L. Ed. 332; but where the forfeiture, if taken advantage of, works a hardship, and full compensation can be made, courts of equity generally relieve against it upon the making of such compensation ; Hagar v. Buck, 44 Vt. 285, 8 Am. Rep. 368; Thompson v. Whipple, 5 R. I. 144. But if the performance of the covenant is impossible, as where the condition was of personal services and the like and the time therefor has passed, equity will not re lieve; Dunklee v. Adams, 20 Vt. 415, 50 Am. Dec. 44; a court of equity never lends its aid to enforce forfeiture; Warner v. Bennett, 31 Conn. 468 ; and it will not relieve against the legal consequences of a breach of a cove nant as well in cases which rest in contract as where the legal relation between the parties is fully established; it must be a strong case of equity created. by a landlord against himself to control his legal right ; 9 Hare 683. In case of a forfeiture for the non-payment of rent, the proviso is allowed to operate simply as a security for rent, and the tenant will be relieved from its effects at any time by paying the landlord or bring ing into court the amount of all arrears of rent, with interest and costs. The right to terminate the lease for the non-payment of rent will not give the lessee any right to avoid the lease or his liability for agreed rent; Lehigh Zinc & I. Co. v. Bamford, 150 U. S. 665, 14 Sup. Ct. 219. 37 L. Ed. 1215: Morris v. De Wolf, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 701, 33 S. W. 556. Where the lessee has forfeited his rights under the lease and abandoned the same, the lessor may have it cancelled; Reese v. Zinn, 103 Fed. 97. A provision in a lease that the lessee may buy the land "at the option of the parties" means that the lessee may buy at his own option ; Mack v. Dailey, 67 Vt. 90, 30 Atl. 686; and where the leaSe contains such an option if the les see keeps all its conditions, the acceptance by the landlord of the rent after it is due, without objection, waives a breach of the condition as to the time of its payment ; id.
See LANDLORD AND TENANT.
A lease may be by any agree ment between the parties that the term shall be terminated, which is irrevocably acted upon by both ; Buffalo County Nat. Bank v. Hanson; 34 Neb. 455, 51 N. W. 1035; but a mere agreement, unless accompanied by the act, is inoperative; National Union Bldg. Ass'n v. Brewer, 41 III. App. 223.