The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1889-08-06
TENANTS LIABILITY.
Few Words Concerning an Inter
estiag Question Now Pending


10 FIRE EDIT0R. In the report in your
yesterdays issge, Of The pending litigation
20 determine the question OF tenants la
bIiity for reni o. premises for period sub
sequent 10 the des Factisn of the buildings
BY tie late Gre. II i stated that the ease
decides a question on which. ctIriously
enough, there Is not an authority in the
whole history OF Jurisprudence.
As the suit = regarded a. "a test case on
The principles invoved aud a. In view 81
the great extent OF the tire, IL is a question
OF general local Interest, affecting many
citizens, think that | sm Justified ia
"a tempting a correction OF the statement
quoted irOIa your report As / understand
K. the question Is hy no means o new one
10 the courts, and the legal aspect has not
been left la doubt by the adjudications.
which quite clearly and with spparsui
uniformity, establish The legal principles
which con rol.
IL is well established Lew in Penusyl-
Faaia that afder lease OF land on which
there is a building with al express cove
nauf to pay rent the destruction OF the
building by IRE is no defense for the lessee
agsinst the payment Of rent. He is liable
for the rent notwithstanding his use of the
premises ~ entirely lost. There are of
course exceptions 10 the tenants liability
10 paw rent Tor premises destroyed by IRE.
resting upon facts which SUPPORT the ex-
ceptlODs. ore i here by the terms of
The lease, u Is expressly eoyenautea thsf
the liability 60 pay the rent shall d rmiuate
when the tenant by reason of ere or other
unavoidable CAUSES, ceases to enjoy the
use 81 the premises. Another il. that II the
landlord takes possession OF the ruins Of
bis premises after the buildings have been
destroy Ell by TIRE. for the purpose II re-
building without The tenant consent liz n
an eviction of If with his assent. Ii is a re-
cessiOn of the lease. and in either case the
rem, is suspended, Chief Justice Gibson,
Than whom there has never been brighter
+. gal light ar finer jurist in Pennsylvania
or Ia any other state. laid IL down broadly
In a supreme court opinion, that nothing
bur a surrender. release or an eviction
can in whole or in part shsolye the tenant
from the obligation Of his covenant 10 pay
the rent
Not only ia Pennsylvania has there been
the recognized legal principle ever since.
but tn other states and Jurisdictions the
same doctrine II the generally accepted
one am not ignorant Of the fact thsf
the destruction or re-tenantabie condition
ot demtScd premises Is By statute in New
York and perhaps elsewhere. made a
ground FOR relief against rent But it re-
CURED "A statutory enactment o. accomplish
fhis. In The absence 81 such statutes the
law Is a. stated. ! 10 not wish OF course
- b. understood ~ assuming TO determine
the legal merits OF the contention between
plaintiffs and defendants In the pending
litigation. "a there may b. special facts
which bring IT, within one of the sxeep-
tons mentioned. bai the general princi-
pies al law. as have stated them. have the
supper; Of well established authorizations
J. NJ WiEsrEING