Under the common law, however, the tenant is subject to the rule of caveat emptor "The general rule is that the tenant must beware. He must examine the premises before taking them and rely upon his own examination, unless he procures & warranty from the landlord of the safety of the premises. The burden of examination is placed on him and not on the landlord."
There is, indeed, some contrary authority even in common law jurisdiction, but it is in 'a hopeless minority and in any case the rule has been settled for this tribunal by the Supreme Court. It is true that the landlord is liable for latent defects known to him but the law imposes on him no obligation of care and diligence to discover them.
In the case at bar defendant's president testifies that, referring to the time of lease, he knew no defects in the premises. We find no evidence to the contrary. The municipal architect of the French Concession testifies that he told the witness referred to of defective construction, but this was not only after the lease had been executed, but after the fires complained of had actually occurred. Moreover two architects who inspected the premises testified that they found nothing defective.
It is claimed, however, that defendant assumed liability for any such defects by the following clause in the lease:—It is further agreed that (the said premises being now in a good state of repair) all repairs or decorations that may at any time, during the term of this lease become necessary to the inside of the said premises shall be done by and at the expense of the lessee.
It will be seen that this expressly places the burden of "all repairs" on the plaintiff. We do not re-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.