but rather depends upon who commits the acts or continues the conditions. It is the occupier, and he alone, to whom responsibility generally and prima facie attaches.31 The respective liabilities of parties in connection with the maintenance of nuisance have been fairly well covered in the consideration of the joint liability of persons to which discussion reference is made.32 Some additional statements of general propositions are here added. Beneficiaries under a trust are not responsible for any nuisance created or permitted by a trustee, the latter being liable.33 An heir or devisee can only be made liable for a nuisance upon the inherited premises after notice and request to abate the same. 34 § 661. Who Liable Continued-Grantee, When Liable. And the duty may rest upon owner or occupant in case of a lease, according to contract.35 The rule is well settled that a grantee of a person, who has created a nuisance upon his premises, cannot be held responsible for its continuance until some notice or demand for its abatement has been made of him; after this, if it continue, he becomes equally responsible with the creator of the nuisance.36 Speak 31 Ahern v. Steele. 115 N. Y. 203. 12 Am. St. Rep. 778, 22 N. E. 193: Inhabitants of Oakham v. Holbrook, 11 Cush. 229; Kirby v. Boylston Market Assn., 14 Gray, 249, 74 Am. Dec. 682. 32 Ante, sec. 53. 33 Ahern v. Steele, 115 N. Y. 203, 12 Am. St. Rep. 778, 22 N. E. 193. 34 Sloggy v. Dilworth, 38 Minn. 179, 8 Am. St. Rep. 656, 36 N. W. 451. 35 Sec. 662, post. 36 California: Grigsby v. Water Co., 40 Cal. 396. Alabama: Crommelin v. Coxe, 30 Ala. 318, 68 Am. Dec. 121 (allowing excavation to remain open and uncovered). Connecticut: Johnson v. Lewis, 13 Conn. 304, 33 Am. Dec. 405. Maine: Pillsbury v. Moore, 44 Me. 154, 69 Am. Dec. 91 (continuance of dam). ing of the responsibility of the owner in a leading and very well-considered case, the court of appeals of New York said: "It is not the general rule that an owner of land is, as such, responsible for any nuisance thereon; it is the occupier, and he alone, to whom such responsibility generally and prima facie attaches.37 The owner is responsible if he creates a nuisance, and maintains it; if he creates a nuisance, and then demises the land with the nuisance thereon, although he is out of occupation; if the nuisance was erected on the land by a prior owner, or by a stranger, and he knowingly maintains it; if he has demised premises and covenanted to keep them in repair, and omits to repair, and thus they become a nuisance; if he demises premises to be used as a nuisance, or for a business, or in a way so that they will necessarily become a nuisance-in all such cases, I believe, there is no dispute that the owner would be liable. But an owner who has demised premises for a term during which they become ruinous, and thus a nuisance, is not responsible for the nuisance, unless he covenanted to repair. It has even been held in some cases that an owner may demise premises so de Massachusetts: McDonough v. Gilman, 3 Allen, 264, 80 Am. Dec. 72; Lufkin v. Zane, 157 Mass. 117, 34 Am. St. Rep. 262, 21 N. E. 757; Nichols v. City of Boston, 98 Mass. 39, 93 Am. Dec. 132. Minnesota: Thornton v. Smith, 11 Minn. 15. New Hampshire: Woodman v. Tufts, 9 N. H. 88; Eastman v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co., 44 N. H. 143, 82 Am. Dec. 201 (continuance of dam). New York: Ahern v. Steele, 115 N. Y. 203, 12 Am. St. Rep. 778, 22 N. E. 193; Conhocton Stone Road Co. v. Railroad Co., 51 N. Y. 573, 10 Am. Rep. 646. Vermont. For continuing a nuisance, lessor, assignees of lease, lessees, and sublessees, are jointly liable: Rogers v. Stewart, 5 Vt. 215, 26 Am. Dec. 296. This subject has been fully discussed in connection with the joint liability of persons: Ante, sec. 53. 37 Kirby v. Boylston Market Assn., 14 Gray, 249, 74 Am. Dec. GS2, etc. fective and out of repair as to be a nuisance, and if he binds his tenant to make repairs, he is not responsible for the nuisance during the term.38 But these cases are not in entire harmony with the decisions, etc. . . . . A grantee or devisee of premises upon which there is a nuisance at the time the title passes is not responsible for the nuisance until he has had notice thereof, and in some cases until he has been requested to abate the same." 39 § 662. Liability of Owner Leasing Premises to Tenant-To Tenant and Others.--Very interesting and important questions are presented in the consideration of the respective liabilities of landlord and tenant for injuries to either tenant or his servants, or others coming upon the premises at the invitation of the tenant from or on account of the dangerous condition thereof. Much litigation has been had, and considerable discussion is found in the decisions upon the question. There is difficulty in drawing the dividing line between nuisance and negligence. It must be remembered that a nuisance only arises from a condition of property brought about by continuous neglect, and not from a single act of neglect. A building, or some portion thereof, or fixture attached thereto, may be negligently constructed and allowed to remain in that condition, so as to become a nuisance. The determination of what a nuisance is upon or with respect to property leased by an owner to a lessee, so as to render the former liable to the latter, involves very different considerations than does what constitutes a nuisance as to other persons. Some things may be nuisances per se under all circum 38 Pretty v. Bickmore, L. R. 8 C. P. 401; Leonard v. Storer, 115 Mass. 86, 15 Am. Rep. 76. 39 Ahern v. Steele, 115 N. Y. 203, 12 Am. St. Rep. 778, 22 N. E. stances and as to all persons, while other things may be nuisances only under certain circumstances and as to certain persons. "To constitute any particular thing a legal nuisance per se as between lessor and lessee and the servants of the lessee, the thing itself must work some unlawful peril to health or safety of person or property-as defective cesspools, imperfect sewers and drains, walls and chimneys liable to fall, unguarded excavations, etc." 40 If an injury occurs as a result of some defect in and about the premises leased to a tenant which was unknown to the landlord, and could not, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, have become known, there is not only no existing nuisance at the time of the demise, but no liability on the part of the landlord for any injury resulting from such a latent defect.41 The duties and liabilities of the landlord arising from negligent acts are not pertinent here. We refer to an excellent discussion in the authority cited in the note.42 If the premises at the time of leasing the same to a tenant are in such condition as to constitute a nuisance, which is known to the landlord, or ought to have been known by him if he had been prudent and cautious, then the landlord is liable for injuries resulting therefrom, notwithstanding the lease to the tenant. He is liable for any injuries occurring to persons injured who go upon the premises to deal with the tenant.48 The liability of the landlord ex 40 Whitmore v. Orono Pulp etc. Co., 91 Me. 297, 64 Am. St. Rep. 229, 39 Atl. 1032. 41 Metzger v. Schultz, 16 Ind. App. 454, 59 Am. St. Rep. 323, 43 N. E. 886, 45 N. E. 619; Whitmore v. Orono Pulp & P. Co., 91 Me. 297, 64 Am. St. Rep. 229, 39 Atl. 1032. 42 66 Am. St. Rep. 785-789; 86 Am. St. Rep. 508, note. 43 Maine: Nugent v. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 80 Me. 62, 6 Am. St. Rep. 151, 12 Atl. 797. tends not only to third persons,44 but to the tenant as well, where he fails to disclose the condition to such tenant, and the latter is not guilty of contributory negligence.45 Cases calling for the application of this rule of liability under the head of nuisance are rare, as the gist of such wrong is more of the nature of fraud or negligence. A tenant who takes property with apparent defects, with an equal opportunity with the landlord of discovering the same, is in no position to complain of his landlord for injuries resulting therefrom to himself." 46 The liability of a landlord for a nuisance created upon the demised premises after the lease, through mere neglect, will depend upon whose duty it is to see that the premises are kept in proper condition. Where, by the contract between the landlord and tenant, the former retains control over the premises for the purpose of making the necessary repairs, and this duty is imposed upon him, its violation resulting in the creation of a nuisance while in the occupancy of the tenant, the landlord is nevertheless liable.47 New York: Swords v. Edgar, 59 N. Y. 28, 17 Am. Rep. 295; Timlin v. Standard Oil Co., 126 N. Y. 514, 22 Am. St. Rep. 845, 27 N. E. 786. Pennsylvania: Wunder v. McLean, 134 Pa. St. 334, 19 Am. St. Rep. 702, 19 Atl. 749. Rhode Island: Henson v. Beckwith, 20 R. I. 165, 78 Am. St. Rep. 847, 37 Atl. 702. Tennessee: Wilcox v. Hines, 100 Tenn. 538, 66 Am. St. Rep. 770, 46 S. W. 297. 44 Id. 45 Minor v. Sharon, 112 Mass. 477, 17 Am. Rep. 122 (where house was infected with smallpox); Cesar v. Karutz, 60 N. Y. 229, 19 Am. Rep. 164 (same kind of case). 46 Davidson v. Fischer, 11 Colo. 583, 7 Am. St. Rep. 267, 19 Pac. 652; Bowe v. Hunking, 135 Mass. 380, 46 Am. Rep. 471. 47 Edwards v. New York etc. R. R. Co., 98 N. Y. 245, 50 Am. Rep. 659; Ingwersen v. Rankin, 47 N. J. L. 18, 54 Am. Rep. 109. See Edgar v. Walker, 106 Ga. 454, 32 S. E. 582; Curran v. Flammer, 62 |