A LEASE IS AN AGREEMENT, and, as every one knows, usually relates to
the hiring of lands and houses. _If the agreement is to be for a
longer period than one year it should be in writing_, for if it be not
either party can avoid it, not morally but in law. The statute of
frauds, which has been explained, would shield either party in not
carrying out such an agreement if it were not in writing if by its
terms it was to last for a longer period than one year.
There is another very important reason for putting such an agreement
in writing. Much of the law relating to the two parties, landlord and
tenant, is one-sided and in favour of the landlord. Our law on that
subject is based on the English law. It was imported in the early
colonial days, and, though it has been greatly changed by statute and
by decisions of the courts, it is still very one-sided, as we shall
see before finishing this paper. For this reason, especially, all
leases relating to houses and stores or other buildings, even for a
short period, should be in writing, with the rights and duties of both
parties fully stated, so that both may clearly know what to do and to
expect.
Unless something is said in the lease concerning repairs the landlord
is not obliged to make any. This statement shows at once the need of
having a written lease. If the house is out of order--the locks,
blinds, doors, and windows are not in good order--the tenant cannot
claim anything of the landlord or require him to put them in good
condition. Even if a house should become unfit for habitation in
consequence of fire, or is blown down, or is flooded with water, the
landlord is not bound to do anything unless he has stated that he will
in his lease.
A fire broke out not long since in a large warehouse and burned it so
completely as to render it wholly unfit for use; indeed, all the
merchandise in it was wholly consumed. Nevertheless, when the lease
expired and the tenants refused to pay as they had agreed to do, the
landlord brought a legal proceeding against them to compel them to pay
during the entire period, as though they had been staying there and
selling goods and making money, and they were compelled to pay. _This
is the common law on the subject_, and every tenant is bound to pay in
such cases unless he has clearly stated in his lease that he is not to
be holden in the event of the destruction of the building by fire,
flood, lightning, or other cause.
Furthermore, it may be added that leases nowadays are often furnished
with blank spaces to be filled up with names, the amounts to be paid,
times of payment, etc., and persons often sign them without even
reading them. They should not do this. They should be careful to read
them over two or three times or more, until they fully understand them
and are sure of their nature before signing or executing them. People
are still more negligent in taking out insurance policies without
reading them. They are very long and parts of them are printed in fine
type and, perhaps, are quite difficult, especially for old eyes, to
read. In truth some of the most important parts are put in the finest
print--some of the exceptions against loss and other matters, which,
we are quite sure, if a person when taking out a policy should read
over and understand he would insist on having changed.
If a house becomes unfit for living therein by its own fault--for
example, if it is overrun with rats, or becomes so decayed that the
weather invades and is thereby rendered unfit--the tenant, so the law
says, has indeed the privilege of quitting, if he did not know these
things at the time of entering; but if he did, he would be required to
live there, however much he might dislike the company of rats or the
presence of the snow or rain, and also to pay his rent; or, if
quitting for that reason, he would still be responsible for the rent
as he would if living in the house. An eminent legal writer has stated
the principle in this way: The tenant can leave if the defect was not
known or anticipated by him, or known or anticipated if he had made a
reasonable investigation or inquiry before he took the lease.
A tenant is not required to make general repairs without an agreement,
but he must make those that are necessary to preserve the house from
injury by rain and wind. If the shingles are blown off or panes of
glass are broken others must be put in their places; and it is said
that he would be bound even for ornamental repairs, like paper and
painting, if he made an agreement to return the house in good order.
A tenant of a farm must manage and cultivate it by the same rules of
husbandry as are practised in his vicinity, and if his lease ends by
any event that is uncertain and could neither have been foreseen nor
foretold, he is entitled to the annual crop sowed or planted by him
while he was in possession.
As we have stated, if the house is wholly destroyed the tenant must
still pay the rent, for the reason, which to many may seem absurd,
that the law regards the land as the principal thing and the house as
secondary. It is true that a man, in the event of his house burning
down, might pitch a tent on the ground and live there, but it would be
a decidedly chilly way of living, especially in the winter-time, in
the northern part of our country. If a tenant should agree to return
and deliver the house at the end of the term in good order and
condition, reasonable wear and tear only excepted, he would be obliged
to rebuild the house if it burned down. Once more, we ask, in view of
these things, ought he not to make a written lease and well understand
its terms before signing it?
The times for paying rent are usually specified in the lease, if one
is made. When they are not the tenant is governed by the usage of the
country or place where he lives.
When nothing is said about underletting the whole or a part to some
one else the tenant has a right to do this, but remains bound to the
landlord for his rent. Generally when written leases are made there is
a clause stating that the tenant cannot underlet any portion or all
without the landlord's consent.
_A tenant is not responsible for taxes unless it is expressly agreed
that he shall pay them._
If a lease be for a fixed time the tenant loses all right or interest
in the land as soon as the lease comes to an end, and he must leave
then or the landlord may turn him out at once, or, in other language,
eject him. If, however, he stays there longer with the consent of the
landlord he is then called a tenant at will and cannot be turned out
by the landlord without giving a notice to him to quit. The statutes
of the several States have fixed the length of time that a notice
must be given by the landlord to his tenant before he can turn him
out. In many States a notice of thirty days must be given; sometimes
sixty days' notice is required, or even longer.
It is an important question _what things a tenant may take away with
him at the expiration of his lease_. Of course, there is no question
whatever with respect to many things. Besides his wife and children he
may take all his furniture and other movable property. But there are
many things fixed to the house by the tenant that he desires to remove
if he has the right to do so, and many questions have been asked and
decided by the courts relating to this subject. The method of
fastening them to the house is the test usually applied to determine
whether they can be taken away or not. If they are fastened by screws
in such a way as to show that the tenant intended to take them away,
he can do so, otherwise he cannot.
In modern times the rule has been changed in favour of the tenant, and
whatever he can remove without injuring the house, leaving it in as
good condition as it would otherwise be, he can take away; for
example, ornamental chimney-pieces, coffee-mills, cornices that are
furnished with screws, furnaces, stoves, looking-glasses, pumps,
gates, fence rails, barns or stables on blocks, etc. On the other
hand, a barn placed on the ground cannot be removed, nor benches
fastened to the house, nor trees, plants, and hedges not belonging to
a gardener by trade, nor locks and keys. Of course, all these things
may be changed by the written lease, and it should be clearly stated
what things may be removed concerning which any doubt may arise. We
have heard of a case in which a tenant put a pier-glass into a house,
fastening it by means of cement. He asked and was given the
landlord's permission to do this at the time of putting it in, but
when the lease ended the landlord would not allow him to take it out,
and an appeal was made to a court, which decided in favour of the
landlord. Doubtless this decision is correct. If the glass could have
been taken away without injuring the wall then it belonged to the
tenant. This shows the need of putting such matters in writing;
otherwise the tenant will suffer unless the landlord be a man of the
highest integrity.