Cutlar v. Potts.

thought it politic that the law should be as stated in the Taw authorities cited on the former argument, otherwise a lessee might frequently be tempted to destroy the premises, in order to get dear of his bargain ; the law as laid down in these authorities has the opposite tendency : Lessees have every inducement to take care of the premises, and none to injure them, when they must pay whether the premises are burnt down or not; the value of the rent is a loss that must fall some where, upon the lessee if he pays, upon the lessor if he does not; — and why should that loss fall upon the lessor, who is an innocent man, any more than upon the lessee, who is no better than one innocent man ?