case CUDLIP against rundli Trinity term William and mary roll if a lessee for  year of two house the one new and the other old underlet the premise for seven  year except and reserve the new house for the use of the lessor if he shall  please to dwell therein but not to be let to any other person and at all time  when he do not live there to be to the use of the lessee this new house be not  demise and the lessee by occupy it become mere a tenant at will so that if a  fire accidental happen therein the landlord can maintain a action against he  for negligence SC Mod SC Carth SC comb S c salk SC Mod SC holt Plowd   light  dyer   cro Elizabeth sheep touch declaration in case pro eastern quod the  plaintiff on the twentyfifth of march car be possess of a house with the  appurtenance for a term of year then and yet to come and be so possess do by  indenture demise the premise to the defendant for seven year then next ensue  by virtue whereof the defendant enter and be thereof possess and so be possess  and the plaintiff possess of the reversion thereof the defendant afterward the  that November in the year c fire suum in house breed tam negligent to watch  that the house be burn to his damage of three hundred pound the defendant  plead non to send different ways modus et form prout to express grief narr  issue thereupon the jury find that the plaintiff on the twentyfifth of march  be possess of the premise for a certain term of year then and yet to come and  be so possess by indenture then make in consideration of the rend and covenant  thereinafter mention he do demise grant and to farm let for herbage pasture  and tillage to the say defendant his executor and assign all that one message  or tenement with the appurtenance common know by the name of Ugbeare situate  in Tavistock and then in the tenure of the say Cudlip or assign together with  all house outhouse structure way water watercourse profit and commodity  thereunto belong or in anywise appertain except and always reserve out of the  say demise and lease to the plaintiff his executor and administrator the  shower KB house common call the new house new build upon the premise for the  use only of the father of the say plaintiff and himself and their wife and  family to live in if they please but not to be let to any person or person  whatsoever and at all other time when they shall not dwell there to be use by  the defendant his executor and assign and also except one nursery with the  tree therein grow to the plaintiff his executor and assign during the term  after mention to hold the premise except before except to the defendant his  executor and assign for seven year c that at the time of the lease make there  be two house upon the premise one old one and one new build that the new build  house only be burn that at the time of the fire the defendant be in possession  of the new build house except one room which the plaintiff have and that the  new build house be burn by fire make and negligent keep by the defendant in  that part of the house then in his possession et si c to his damage one  hundred pound et si for the defendant pro defend for the plaintiff there have  be many query start in this case at the bar and by your lordship first whether  this action lie against a under lessee second if there be any reversion in the  plaintiff to find this action three if this be such a demise as we have  declare on suppose it a tenancy at will if that so find maintain our  declaration day if here be any demise for year and this last I shall endeavour  to maintain first if this new house do pass or be except and with submission  my Lord it be not except because the exception be qualify we be here in the  case of a lease where every word be to be so construe as to have a due and  full sense if the rule of law will permit it and no such construction be to be  make or allow as shall reject or make void any part or clause of the deed if  by any other construction consistent with the rule of law they may be make to  have a sense and this be a rule in all law and in we especial for which I may  cite shower KB er p many case now shower KB these word for the use of c must  be void if their construction hold for then they be of no service whereas I  say these word shall qualify the sense of the general word except and then the  term and interest passes but a liberty or usage be reserve to the lessor it be  true the first word be strong but then the subsequent one explain their sense  the intent be to be gather from the whole contexture the word subsequent  explain their meaning and at all other time the lessee his executor and assign  be to have it that plain denote a interest vest to be their intent which shall  go in succession to the party representative whereas the benefit of the use to  the lessor be only personal and extend no further than to he and his father no  word of interest use nor so much as executor be there name then the next  exception show their different meaning videlicet except during the term there  be a total exception design of the nursery here be only a personal occupation  reserve which only do amount to a covenant and the different form of pen show  the different intent of the party in the several exception so that the  interest of the thing be never design to be except in the first for if so then  they will have use the same word as in the last and this answer the objection  of the except as before except in the habendum for that be sufficient fulfil  by the exception of the nursery which be total and complete and during the  whole term that this exception ought to be construe accord to the sense I will  put upon it there be the reason of the law for it he agree that these word use  in a will may give a interest and pass the thing to be use and so be Matthew  man case   because of the intent but that imply it shall be otherwise in a  deed nay though it shall pass the thing itself in the case of a grant yet it  will not reserve it in a exception for that the word of a exception be the  word of the lessor and to be construe most strong contra to carry out and so  be bro title except pl Henry pl and the case of I have v same cro Elizabeth do  contradict as to the exception of wood that that except the soil yet it must  be agree still that a exception be to be construe most strong against the  exceptor because his word Plowd in will covenant and all agreement and a lease  be but a agreement the latter part shall explain qualify restrain or enlarge  the general word precedent especial if in one sentence the book be plentiful  in this matter whether the restrictive word be precedent or subsequent as in  dyer termor shower KB for year assign his term and covenant that he have not  make any former grant or do any thing whereby the say assignment shall be  impair or frustrate but that the assignee may quiet enjoy without the  disturbance of any person hold that the general word shall be restrain and  limit by the exposition of the particular one so dyer condition to suffer the  obligee quiet to hold the land during the term and that without the trouble of  any person hold that the general word shall be restrain by the particular nor  be there one case to the contrary sir Geo trenchard case winch and Litt Rep  covenant that he be seize in fee and that he have power to sell and that no  reversion be in the crown notwithstanding any act do by the covenantor the  last word notwithstanding any act do restrain the general sense of both the  former covenant and in all the case on this topic it be agree that the general  shall be restrain by the particular if they be but one entire sentence here  they be undoubted but one the case of Gainsford v Griffith sand agree that  point in that case of sir George trenchard as report by Littleton there be  many case quote which deserve not a repetition before your lordship then this  exception seem repugnant and therefore void as if I grant totan parten piscar  urinate salvo I piscario meo this be a void exception because repugnant and  contrary to the first grant bro title reserve grant of twenty acre reserve or  except one be void because repugnant   light lease of a manor except the court  and profit exception void more dyer express authority be dyer lease of a house  in fleet street with all chamber cellar and shop thereunto belong except the  shop for his use and hold a void exception and that for two reason both which  hold in our case videlicet the first per dyer the exception be but special and  temporary videlicet during the occupation and use of the lessor himself and  the premise be lease general then second the shop be by express word demise it  be express say shower KB er p all shop and the exception be contrary to the  express word of the grant be void and this be dyer opinion contra Weston and  then at last be add et such to be opinion another justicariorum tandem this be  direct but I confess that Mr row do cite and and there the case by the name of  Homeby v Clifton be otherwise report but my Lord dyer say that such at length  be the opinion of the other justice so that on first argument the opinion may  be as Anderson put it beside his report shower KB be imperfect they take  notice only of the reason of its be special and temporary as idle and void  beside there be a total use reserve here it be at other time for the defendant  and his assign and he take no notice of the argument from the repugnancy which  be the strong reason of the two it be true the report of novel Bendlowes be  agreeable to Anderson but that be plain mistake for it refer to dyer which see  accord whereas it be plain with we but to support the authority of dyer there  be the opinion of my Lord Hobart exact concur who quote this case out of my  Lord dyer as good authority in his argument in the case of Stukley v butler  which be Hilary term James it be fol and several other Kenson v read cro  Elizabeth roll Abr where special express before the exception make as in the  case of underwood reservation and exception shall be void rather than the  intent of the grant shall be frustrate as Dorril v Collins cro Elizabeth Arden  v Dennis lane Rep Henry pl out of a general a part may be except but not a  part out of a certainty dyer and the true reason be because the intent where  apparent shall never be falsify where it be not particular a exception may  explain it second then if here be any reversion in the plaintiff that appear  well enough for it be say that the plaintiff be possess of a certain term of  year he make he a lease for seven year by virtue whereof be enter and be  possess that the plaintiff be possess of the reversion thereof for a certain  term of year which can not be if he have assign the whole term further the  jury find we possess of the reversion for a term then and yet to come which be  at the time of the find there be no word of assignment of c but only of a  grant and demise it must now be intend so since the jury have find a  particular matter and refer it to the court everything else ought to be intend  accord to Goodales case   the court on a special verdict shall never doubt of  any thing but that which the jury doubt of and have refer to their  consideration and all other matter shall be supply and intend here the issue  be non to send different ways and the jury have find a deed of demise in  consideration of a rend reserve and that can not be if his term be no long  than seven year and they find that upon the demise premise there be two house  and their conclusion be special if by this indenture the house pass then for  the plaintiff if otherwise for the defendant therefore all other thing shall  be intend as in the case of castle v Hobbs cro car and sand v rich style  special verdict on a will the die seize of the devisor shall be shower KB  intend but of this point the court make no doubt though the chief justice at  first object it then that this action lie be agree by row and must be so if  the house pass by the lease for the reason of the countess of Salops case    and cro Elizabeth be because tenant at will be not liable for permissive waste  either by commonlaw or by statute and the lessor be seize in fee and not  liable over for any waste do but here be a lessee for year under we if he be  assignee of the whole term no waste lie against we but only against the  assignee for waste do after the assignment   light Inst because he be the bold  but we be in the case of a under lease and it must be agree that waste lie  against we Lewkner v ford Leon and the case of Swetton v Cashe Yelv there  express hold that it lie not against a under lessee for a lesser term and that  because there want a immediate privity and consequent it must be against we  the very form of declare in the case be in herns plead and so adjudge Vest v  Trude cro car Jones and Jeremy v Lowgar cro Elizabeth nor can I see any reason  why it shall not lie against a tenant at will for we be liable over in that  case which be the true reason the book go upon a a by Geo c S no action suit  or process whatsoever shall be have shower KB er p but suppose the house  except and then the defendant but tenant at will if this find maintain our  declaration this I waive because I be of opinion that it be a material  variance Mr gold however argue that if at will the verdict be for the  plaintiff and the lease only a inducement and not of the substance and the  modus et form be not material in this case and cite Clare v Pepis cro  Elizabeth Leon Kaire v Deucart Owen   light and Hydens case cro James to which  Mr row e contra insist that modus et form in this case be of the substance of  the issue and that this be another demise and that tenancy at will and for  year be quite different and cite dyer and roll and the court be of this  opinion and that the case in roll Abr pl be strong than this and hob and in  this case they ought to prove a demise for seven year though it must be own  that if a man enter by agreement he become tenant at will and beneficiary and  trust be such Tremaine sergeant argue on the other side on the point of  exception only as I do videlicet that as to repugnancy there be none because  it be general all the house and structure and then the exception of one be  well enough then it be except shower KB to the plaintiff and his executor to  be use by he which intend the interest and not bare the use then these word  not to be let or set import a interest for if only the use be intend then the  word not to be let will be idle afterward the court give their opinion several  eyres justice that it be no demise of the new house for seven year the new  house be plain except out of the demise though there seem to be a  qualification of the exception and there may be a save out of the same Owen  this qualification only amount to give a tenancy at will to the defendant it  be at the pleasure of the lessor whether the lessee shall enjoy it for the  term or any part thereof and therefore it be only declarative how the lessor  agree to use that house but no term passes to the defendant by it and  therefore the defendant must have judgement for he though I think the  plaintiff may have declare right Gregory justice be of the same opinion I  think the action lie for the thing speak itself for the plaintiff have a long  term in it and that be lose Jones r but I think the exception good and no way  repugnant to the deed if the thing do not pass by the general word of the  grant the exception will be useless and dyer report not the case so well as  Anderson and Bendlowes dolben ad idem I think it a exception and therefore not  a demise for seven year holt chief justice I think this new house absolute  except out of the demise the word be as full a exception as can be the word  afterward be no manner of qualification of the word of the exception but only  declarative of what purpose it be for a exception may be qualify as it may be  for part of the term but if a lease or assignment be for year with a exception  of the new house for life this exception be void I and be our case in point  and good law and there hold a good exception and qualify in dyer it be hold a  void exception but for another reason because repugnant now it be true you can  except that which be particular and express grant but then the grant be only  in general the case of miller v Pratt dyer in the margin I take to be good law  judgement for the defendant maintain or prosecute against any person in who  house or chamber any fire shall accidental begin or any recompense be make by  such person for any damage suffer or occasion thereby but it be provide that  nothing in the Act contain shall extend to defeat or make void any contract or  agreement make between landlord and tenant see Geo c S shower KB er p