In case of the destruction of the rental property, the loss of the rent must fall somewhere, and there is no more equity that the landlord should bear it than the tenant, when the tenant has expressly agreed to pay it, and when the landlord must bear the loss of the property destroyed. Equity considers the calamity mutual. She will not interfere to relieve against the express contract of the tenant.
Plaintiff landlord filed an action for rent against defendant tenant. The tenant claimed that his plea that he was not liable to pay rent to the landlord because the house he had rented had been destroyed by fire was improperly struck out. The tenant also claimed that his demurrer to the evidence against him was improperly overruled because there was a variance between the allegation in the landlord's writ describing the note and the note tendered in evidence. The trial court's judgment for the landlord was affirmed.
Whether in case of express contracts to pay rent, the destruction, of the premises by fire, or violence, or any casualty whatever, is a defense to an action to recover the rent.
The variance between the evidence and the note described in the landlord's writ was not fatal. The landlord's complaint sufficiently notified the tenant of the claims against him. Further, the tenant was not entitled to relief from his rent obligation on the ground that the rented premises had been destroyed by fire or any other casualty because there was no express stipulation in the note to that effect. Nor will a Court of Equity relieve against such contracts under such circumstances.