dehors the deed is admissible to show the real consideration in a deed, even though a nominal one is expressed therein, provided such evidence does not contradict the deed itself."

44 Hartopp v. Hartopp, 17 Ves. 184;

11 R R. 48; Nash v. Armstrong, 30 L. J. C. P. 286; 10 C. B. N. S. 259;

252; 64 N. W. 880; Lowery v. Dow- | see Anderson v. Continental Ins. ney, 150 Ind. 364; 50 N. E. 79; First Co., 112 Ga. 532; 37 S. E. 766; IlliNat. Bk. v. Flynn, 117 Iowa, 493; nois L. & L. Co. v. Bonner, 91 Ill. 91 N. W. 784; Coleman v. Gammon 114; Thompson v. Bryant, 75 Miss. (Iowa, 1900), 83 N. W. 898; Harvey 12; 21 So. 655; Davidson v. Jones, v. Henry, 108 Iowa, 168; 78 N. W. 56 Miss. 56; Greenvault v. Davis, 4 850; Wade v. Root, 24 Ky. L. R. Hill (N. Y.), 643, 649; Prescott v. 1294; 71 S. W. 444; Poor's Ex'r Hayes, 43 N. H. 593; Nave v. Marv. Scott, 24 Ky. L. R. 239; 68 S. shall, 9 Ohio N. P. 488; 9 Ohio S. & W. 397; Woolfolk v. Earle, 19 Ky. L. C. P. Dec. 475; Lavender v. Daniel, R. 343; 40 S. W. 247; Tolman v. 58 S. C. 125; 36 S. E. 546; Teague v. Ward, 86 Me. 303; 29 Atl. 1081; 41 | Teague (Tex. Civ. App. 1903), 71 S. Am. St. Rep. 556; Clark v. Lowe, W. 555. See secs. 1790-1792 herein. 113 Mich. 352; 71 N. W. 638; LeMay v. Brett, 81 Minn. 506; 84 N. W. 339; Jenson v. Crosby (Minn. 1900), 82 N. W. 916; Columbian Nat. Bk. v. Bald- | 7 Jur. N. S. 1060; 9 W. R. 782; Nixon win (Neb. 1902), 90 N. W. 830; Stoltz v. Vanatta, 5 Ohio S. & C. P. Dec. 34; Henry v. Zurflich, 203 Pa. 246; 53 Atl. 243; Barnes v. Black (Pa. 1900), 44 Atl. 550; Temperance Mut. Ben. Assn. v. Home F. Soc., 187 Pa. 38; 42 W. N. C. 451; 40 Atl. 1100; 28 Ins. L. J. 88; Wilson v. Pearl, 12 | Pa. Super. Ct. 66; Lenhardt v. Ponder, 64 S. C. 354; 42 S. E. 169; Alexander v. McDaniel, 56 S. C. 252; 34 S. E. 405; Miller v. Kennedy (S. D. 1900), 81 N. W. 906; F. Groos & Co. v. First Nat. Bk. (Tex. Civ. App. 1903), 72 S. W. 402; Johnson v. El men (Tex. 1900), 59 S. W. 253; 52 L. R. A. 162; Miller v. Livingston (Utah, 1900), 61 Pac. 560; Perkins v. McAuliffe, 105 Wis. 582; 81 N. W. 645; Hitz v. National Metropolitan Bank, 111 U. S. 722. See Sedgwick on Dam. (ed. 1891) sec. 965. 1910

But

v. Hamilton, 1 Ir. Eq. R. 55; 2 Dr. & Wal. 364; Smith v. Battams, 26 L. J. Ex. 232; Clifford v. Turrill, 1 L. J. Ch. 390; 1 Y. & C. C. C. 138; 9 Jur. 633. See also Townsend v. Toker, 14 W. R. 806; Rountree v. Jacob, 2 Taunt. 141; Colman v. Sarrel, 1 Ves. J. 51; 1 R. R. 83; Craythorne v. Swinburne, 14 Ves. 166; Frail v. Ellis, 22 L. J. Ch. 467; 16 Beav. 350; 1 W. R. 72; Baker v. Dewey, 1 B. & C. 704; Tull v. Parlett, 1 M. & M. 472; 31 R. R. 751; Peacock v. Monk, 1 Ves. Sen. 127; Rex v. Scammonden, 3 Tenn. R. 474; 1 R. R. 752; British & F. C. Co., In re, Leifchild, Ex parte, 11 Jur. N. S. 941; 1 L. R. Eq. 231; 13 L. T. 267; 14 W. R. 22; Lampon v. Corke, 1 B. & Ald. 606. Examine Watt v. Grove, 2 Sch. & Lef. 501.

CHAPTER LXIII.

LANDLORD AND TENANT AND COVENANTS.

§ 1841. Covenant for possession and enjoyment-Refusal, failure, etc., to deliver possession-What damages recoverable. If there is a breach of a covenant of possession and enjoyment in a lease, and the rent has not been paid, the damages recoverable will be the difference between the rents reserved and the value of the leasehold at the time of the breach, and during the period of nonenjoyment of the premises. So for refusal or failure to deliver possession to the lessee, or to put him in possession of the leased premises, the measure of damages is the difference between the rent reserved and the value of the premises for the term; or the difference

1 See sec. 1844 herein.

2 Tyson v. Chestnut, 118 Ala. 387; 24 So. 73. See Snodgrass v. Reynolds, 79 Ala. 452. But see Deluise v. Long I. El. R. Co., 65 App. Div. (N. Y.) 487; 72 N. Y. Supp. 988.

Rose v. Wynn, 42 Ark. 257; Joseph Bernhard & Son v. Curtis, 75 Conn. 476; 54 Atl. 213; Hodges v. Fries, 34 Fla. 63; 15 So. 682; Engelsdorf v. Sire, 64 Hun (N. Y.), 209; 46 N. Y. St. R. 107; 18 N. Y. Supp. 907; Price v. Eisen, 64 N. Y. St. R. 405; 31

Misc. 457; Engstrom v. Merriam (Wash.), 64 Pac. 974; Serfling v. Andrews (Wis.), 81 N. W. 991. See Dobbins v. Duquid, 65 Ill. 464; Freeborn v. LaLoride, 118 Mich. 662.

"In an action by a tenant against his landlord for wrongfully withholding possession of the demised premises the plaintiff is ordinarily entitled to recover as the minimum amount of his damages, the difference between the rental value of the premises for the term leased and the rent reserved,

between the rent to be paid and the actual value of the premises at the time of the breach; or the value of the land at the time of its detention; or substantial damages; or the difference between the rent reserved and a fair rent for the property at the time when it should have been delivered; or the difference between the stipulated rental and the value of the leasehold interest which latter is not qualified by the term "market" value, where the peculiar character of such leasehold precludes an estimate of the market value. And the fair average value of the use of the land less the rent may be allowed as damages for being kept out of possession." So where a city fails to give the lessee of a wharf possession thereof, the difference between the rent reserved and the value of the use of the wharf, at the wharfage rates fixed by law, is recoverable, and the value of the use to which the wharf might have been put in the lessee's private business will not be considered. Again, where the lessee is unable to obtain possession, by reason of the refusal of another, who holds under an unexpired term, to surrender possession, the lessor is liable for more than nominal damages, and the recovery will include certain rent paid in advance, and the difference between the rent agreed to be paid and the value of the term." And, under a similar state of facts, it is decided that the lessor was liable to the lessee for the entire loss sustained by the latter, for rent paid in advance

10

'Newbrough v. Walker, 8 Gratt. (Va.) 16.

such damages being the reasonable, natural and proximate loss sustained by the tenant through the landlord's Jonas v. Noel, 98 Tenn. 440; 30 breach of contract; but recovery is S. W. 724; 36 L. R. A. 862. Examnot in all cases confined to the differ- | ine Williams v. Olephant, 3 Ind. 271. ence of rental value, which is general Taylor v. Cooper (Mich.), 62 N. damages; special damages, which are W. 157. the natural, but not the necessary, consequences of the breach, being also recoverable if properly alleged and shown." Williamson v. Stevens, 82 N. Y. Supp. 1047, 1049, per Laughlin, J.

* Green v. Williams, 45 Ill. 206. 'Roach v. Hefferman, 65 Vt. 485; 27 Atl. 71.

* Joseph Bernhard & Son v. Curtis, 75 Conn. 476; 54 Atl. 213.

10 Eastman v. New York, 152 N. Y. 468; 46 N. E. 841, aff'g 68 N. Y. St. R. 870; 13 Misc. 774.

11 Cohn v. Norton, 57 Conn. 480; 18 Atl. 595; 5 L. R. A. 572. See Joseph Bernhard & Son v. Curtis, 75 Conn. 476; 54 Atl. 213. Examine Deluise v. Long Is. R. Co., 65 App. Div. (N. Y.) 487; 72 N. Y. Supp. 988.

14

and for the difference between the rent reserved and what he would have to pay for another store equally well adapted to the business. If the value of the premises is greater than the amount agreed to be paid as rent, the excess of such value, or the difference between the two amounts, will inure to the benefit of the lessee. But if there is no excess, then only nominal damages are recoverable.18 Other damages which are the direct, natural and necessary consequence of the breach are, however, recoverable, as are also such special damages as are shown to arise naturally and generally from the breach, or which would ordinarily follow from the special circumstances of the case stated at the time and known to both parties, although if the case is one which from the nature of the transaction, or the character of the business in which the party is engaged, a promise may be implied to use the utmost diligence in the performance of the duty undertaken, the law will not require that the party be specially informed, but will deem him to have contemplated the business and hold him responsible accordingly. So where the original lessee and his assignee are excluded from possession the value of the occupancy of the land, for the purpose or use specified in the lease, is the measure of damages. Interest on the damages is also recoverable where no exemplary damages are allowed and one has been kept out of possession after notice to quit."

15

§ 1842. Same subject continued-What damages not recoverable. If the lessor refuses to give possession the lessee cannot, for the purpose of showing the value of the lease or the amount of damages, give evidence of an offer to purchase said lease or of an advantageous contract for its assignment.18

12 Poposkey v. Munkwitz, 68 Wis. 322; 32 N. W. 35.

13 Rose v. Wynn, 42 Ark. 257; Kenny v. Collier, 79 Ga. 58; Dodds v. Hakes, 114 N. Y. 260; 23 N. Y. St. R. 192; 21 N. E. 398; Robrecht v. Marling, 29 W. Va. 765; 2 S. E. 827. 14 Rose v. Wynn, 42 Ark. 257; Hodges v. True (Fla.), 15 So. 682; Joseph Bernhard & Son v. Curtis, 75 Conn. 476; 54 Atl. 213.

15 Cohn v. Norton, 57 Conn. 480; 18 Atl. 595; 5 L. R. A. 572. See also Joseph Bernhard & Son v. Curtis, 75 Conn. 476; 54 Atl. 213; Adair v. Boyle, 20 Iowa, 238.

18 Schneider v. Patterson (Neb.), 57 N. W. 398.

17 Lane v. Ruhl (Mich.), 61 N. W. 347.

18 Lawrence v. Wardell, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 423.