The Hawaiian gazette., 1869-08-25

sue him as disseisor, without entry or no
tice, and may maintain an action Of tort, as
If he had originally entered by wrong. Rus
sell VS.. Fabyan, 81 N. H., 22S
This lease, however, Was voidable only at
the lessons option, and If an actual entry be
not made, some notice was due, that he in
tended to take advantage Of the alleged
breach of condition. The notice should be
precise enough to admonish the lessee that
forfeiture was claimed for condition broken.
willard VS.. Henry, n. H., 12a; Sperry vs..
sperry, n. H., 4s1.l
We regard the plaintiffs objection to the
admission of McGrew, and his refusal of
rent on that score, as sufficient notice
Finally, was the lease forfeited The
original term of two years expired Sept. so,
1867. The lease provides that {" It is to be at
the option Of the lessee, to continue to &C.
cupy, for n further term of three years, ut
the same rental" There was no renewal Of
the lease, but the lessee continued in occu-
patton. If the tenant hold over without
any new agreement, he holds upon the same
rent as under his lease. [Rigge vs.. Bell, 5
Term, a.
The right Of option to take a new lease
need not be exercised during the original
term. Moss VS.. Barton, l Eng. Ed, Az,
1866 And during subsequent occupation,
the tenancy is from year to year. auckland
VS.. Papillon, Eng. Oh. Appeal Cases, 67.l
But an agreement for extension not pro-
viding for the rent or length Of term, might
be held void for uncertainty. [Dufield VS..
Whitlock, 90 wend., SOL
Al the original covenants are not necessa-
rily part of the lease for the additional term,
unless SO stipulated. Rutgers VS.. Hunter, 9
Johns Ch., 2l5]
This agreement provides only for the same
rent. The tenant may always sub-let, unless
otherwise agreed. A covenant against sub
letting is not one Of the usual covenants,
which could be required for valid lease
[Church VS.. Brown, 10 Yes, 25S
Until a new lease is executed, the defend
ant holds the premises, subject only to the
rent provided for by the agreement in the
first lease. Kelso VS.. Kelly, DAILY, 419; Z
Abb. n. Y. Dig, 42O.]
The point, however, was not raised in the
argument, and it is unnecessary to decide
here whether the present occupation,
until a new lease or formal extension, is
subject to the condition against subetting
But we are of the opinion that the act of the
defendant in allowing DIR. McGrew TO occupy
the building with himself. is not a breach of
such condition. The original lease gave the
free and unmolested use of the demised
land, with the privilege of removing the
buildings that the lessee might erect This
implies an unrestricted nse of such buildings
for all lawful purposes. 1t was long since
settled, that covenant not to sublet tene-
ment was not broken by taking dodgers, al
though they have exclusive possession of
room for year or more. Doe dem. Pitt, VS..
Lanning, l r. and NJ, 49,
A clause like this is always strictly
so that 1t may not extend
beyond the express stipulation, and partic-
ularly so, in order to avoid forfeiture
Doe VS.. Carter, Term, 81.
Whether the defendant occupy exclusively
the building which he erects, and has the
right to remove, or not, can not affect the
value Of the lot itself To restrict the de-
fendant to such exclusive use and occupa-
ton of his own buildings, would seem in
consistent with the terms of the lease, and
we do not think it was so intended
Exceptions overruled.