(c) In Franchot v. Leach, 5 Cowen, 506, the jury, under direction of the judge, found the consideration-money and interest as damages for the vendee s breach of his contract, and no objection seems to have been made to the direcIf the contract be to give land for work and labor, this may be treated as for so much money in work and labor.

If the action be brought on the usual covenants in leases, the rule is, as before, compensation. Hence a tenant for life of an estate leased by him, can recover only such damages for breach of covenant by the lessee, as are proportionate to the injury done to the life-estate, (d) And the action may be" brought on * the covenant to repair, before the end of the term, because, although a tenant has, in one sense, the whole term in which to repair, yet the covenant to repair is broken as soon as repairs ought to be made and are not made, (e) By parity of reasoning, the same action might be brought against a landlord, when he, in the same way, failed to discharge his obligations.

A covenant to repair, or to keep the premises in good and sufficient repair, does not mean, only, that they must be kept in the same repair in which they were when the tenant took them, for this may not be good repair; but, it has been held, that the jury might properly take into consideration the condition of the premises at the commencement of the lease, in order to ascertain what was meant by the words, "repair," or "good repair," as used in the lease. (f) tion. Id Alma v. Plummer, 4 GreenL 258, the defendant having bought a pew at auction, and refused a deed when tendered to him, it was held, that the measure of damaged was, "the price agreed to be paid for the pew by the defendant, who will be entitled to the deed whenever he chooses to accept it." This doctrine was approved in Shannon v. Comstock, 21 Wend. 457, 460, and in Williams v. Field, cited in Sedgwick on Damages, p 192, and appears to be now well settled in Maine. Oatman v. Walker, 33 Me. 67 Bat see Sawyer v. Mclntyre, 18 Vt. 27, Gordon v. Norris, 49 N. H. 376, 385. Old Colony R. R Co. v. Evans, 6 Gray, 25

(d) Hence a tenant for life of an estate leased can only recover such damages for breach of covenant by the lessee, as are commensurate with the injury done to the life-estate Evelyn v. Rad-dish, Holt, 543; McKeen v. Gammon, 33 Maine, 187, 192. In New York, the same rale of damages is applied in actions on covenants for quiet enjoyment in leases as in conveyances of the fee-simple. The lessee is allowed costs incurred in defending his title and the rents he has paid during the time he is liable for mesne profits to the true owner, with interest thereon, but he can recover nothing for improvements, or the increased value of the premises Kinney o Watts, 14 Wend. 38, Moak v Johnson, 1 Hill, 99. Kelly o. Dutch Church of Schenectady, 2 Hill, 105, 115 See Lewis v. Campbell, 8 Taunt 715, 3 B & Ald 392 If a lease contains a covenant by a tenant to keep the premises in repair, and a covenant to insure them for a specific sum against fire, if they are burnt down, his liability on the former covenant is not limited to the amount of the sum to be insured under the latter. Digby v. Atkinson, 4 Camp. 275 In Dewinte v. Wilste, 9 Wend. 325, "where a party took a lease of a ferry, and covenanted to maintain and keep the same in good order, and, instead of so doing, diverted travellers from the usual landing to another landing owned by himself, by means whereof a tavern-stand belonging to the plaintiff, situate on the first land ing, was so reduced in business as to become tenantless, it was held, in an action by the landlord for breach of the covenant, that he might assign, and was entitled to recover as damages the loss of rent of the tavern-stand"

(e) Luxmore p. Robson, 1 B A Ald. 584; Schieffelin v. Carpenter, 15 Wend. 400.

(f) Bardett v. Withers, 2 Nev. & P.

122; Stanley v. Towgood, 3 Bine. N. C. 4 See Harris v. Jones, 1 Moody & R. 173; Gutteridge v. Munyard, 7 C. 4 P. 129. In Thompson v. Shattuck, 2 Met. 615, the defendant had covenanted to keep one half of a mill-dam in repair, but the plaintiff's assignor was bound to repair the other half. The defendant failed to make seasonable repairs, the plaintiff repaired the whole, and claimed as damages one half the expense of repairs and the loss of profits in the mill on account of delay. He recovered the former, but not the latter. Dewey, J., in delivering the opinion of the court, thus stated the grounds of the decision: "It being the duty of Plumb [the plaintiff's assignor] to male one half of the repairs, and it being a right which he might at once exercise, to proceed to make the whole repairs, after neglect and refusal of the defendant, upon reasonable notice, to aid in the repairs; if said Plumb delayed to exercise that right, and thereby sustained a loss, it is one which he alone must bear."See Green v Mann, 11 111.613. In Green v, Eales, 2 Q. B. 225, it was held, that a lessor who has covenanted to repair the demised premises, is not liable to the lessee for the rents he was obliged to pay for another residence, or for expense in fitting it up, while the repairs were going on, although the lessee was obliged to move out lor repairs, in consequence of the lessor's neglect.