
    
      The City Council vs. Jane Moorhead.
    
    The usual practice is to prove the identity of a corporate seal by a witness acquainted with its impression; but where a lease, purporting to be attested by the Mayor and common seal of the corporation, was, without objection, proved by the subscribing witness to have been executed by the Mayor; Held, that there was evidence to lay the case before the jury, and that their verdict, supporting the lease, could not be disturbed.
    Tenants, unless by express contract, have no right to charge their landlords for repairs; and this rule, a fortiori, applies, where the tenant knew that the premises were out of repair and covenanted to return them in the order in which they were when received.
    
      Tried in the City Court of Charleston, July Term, 1845.
    The report of the Recorder is as follows.
    
      “ This was an action of covenant on a lease, under seal, in which the plaintiffs claimed a balance of one hundred .and fifty dollars, as due for rent. The execution of the lease was proved by the subscribing witness, James Me-Kean, who was sworn on the part of the plaintiffs. The lease purports to be an agreement between the City Council of Charleston, (the plaintiffs) and Jane Moorhead, (the defendant) by which the City Council let to the defendant a certain house and lot at the corner of Princess and King streets, for the term of one year, from the 17th day of June, 1844. The defendant promised to pay for the same a rent of four hundred dollars, payable quarterly, the first quarter payable on the 17th of September, 1844, and the last quarter on the 17th of June, 1845, with a covenant on the part of the said Jane, well and truly to keep the premises, and deliver them up at the end of the term, in the same good order and condition in which they then were. The attestation of the execution of the lease is as follows.
    
      “ ‘ In witness whereof, the said parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands and seals, this 17th of June, 1844, and the said the City Council of Charleston have hereto set their corporate seal, attested by the Mayor.
    her
    (Signed) ‘Jane M Moohi-iead, [l. s."]
    mark
    ‘ J. SchnieRLIe, Mayor, [l. s.]
    ‘‘ The witness, McKean, on his cross-examination, stated that he knew the premises, and saw them when the defendant took possession under the lease; that they were then out of repair; the partitions on the second floor were gone, also the stairs from the second to the third story; the closet doors were wrenched off; the outer door leading to the piazza . on the second story was gone ; so were the fastenings to the shutters, and a large portion of the glass in the windows; that it cost $230 to put the house in repair. He further stated that no person could have lived in the place unless these repairs had been made; they were made under the impression they would be allowed for in the rent; $400 is a fair rent if the house is in the best order; there is no cistern, no well, and no water.
    “ In reply. — He said that the house was seen by Mr. James Moorhead before he hired it; that the defendant had petitioned Council to allow for repairs, and they would not allow it; does not think any one would give over $400; the present tenant gives $450, but has the adjoining building in Princess street; that Mr. Charles M. Furman saw the repairs going on ; the Mayor once also ; thinks he heard Mr. Furman say that the repairs would he allowed for.
    “ Mr. T. C. Hub bell, deputy city treasurer, was sworn.
    
      “ He said there was due for rent, under this lease, a balance of $150; that the rent was payable quarterly, and defendant moved out before the last quarter was due ; he said that James Moorhead had acted as the agent of Jane Moorhead in.regard to this lease; that all payments were made by him, and that on presenting the account for the quarter previous to the last, he paid $50 on that account, leaving a balance then due of $50 on that quarter, and that he claimed at that time no deduction for repairs.
    “A motion was made by the defendant’s counsel for a non-suit, on the first ground taken.in his appeal, the want of the corporate seal to the lease. I overruled the motion, on the ground that the defendant was bound by her execution of the contract, although the supposed irregularity might be assumed to exist in the execution of the lease on the part of the corporation, as it appeared by the testimony, that both the City Council and the defendant had treated it as a valid and binding agreement; she having enjoyed possession of the leased premises, paid rent under it, and the City Council haying received the same. The lease, upon further inspection, does not seem liable to the objection taken, as it purports to be under the seal of the corporation, attested by the signature of the Mayor, and the court cannot intend or presume that the seal thus affixed is not the proper seal of the corporation.
    
      “ The motion being refused, the cause was argued to the jury by the respective counsel; and I charged them that they were bound by the terms of the written agreement between the parties, and that gave no authority to the defendant to' make the repairs a charge against the plaintiffs, nor any right to a deduction of the rent agreed to be paid.
    
      “ The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs for one hundred and fifty dollars.”
    The defendant appealed, and now moved for a new trial, on the following grounds.
    1. Because his Honor erred in overruling the motion for a non-suit, on the ground of the want of the corporate seal in the lease declared on.
    2. Because the verdict was unjust, inasmuch as the defendant had expended more than the rent claimed, in making the premises habitable, which was promised to be allowed for in the settlement of the rent.
    
      A. G. Magrath, for the motion.
    
      Porter, city attorney, contra.
   Curia, per Richardson, J.

This court concurs in the reasoning of the City Judge upon the lease and the application of the corporate seal; and the jury have found a verdict well supported by the evidence upon the contract for rent. The house was rented for a certain sum, as it stood, and with the knowledge that it was out of repair. Such a lessee had no right to put it in better order at the expense of the lessor. Tenants have no such right, unless by express contract. But in this case the contract was express, to return the premises in the order in which they were when received; which means, that the usual wear and tear or decay fell upon the lessee by the contract. How then could the tenant expect to improve the premises to the debit of the landlord 1 As to the objection, that it does not appear that the common seal of the City Council was applied to the contract. The usual practice is, to prove the identity of the corporate seal by a witness acquainted with its impression. 1 Phil. Ev. 380. But in this case, the lease being proved by the subscribing witness, without objection, and purporting to be attested by the Mayor and common seal, there was evidence to lay the case before the jury, and no negative evidence being adduced by the defendant, the verdict must be supported against this mere technical objection.

O’Nealu, Evans, ButleR, Wardlaw and Frost, JJ. concurred.  