Cited by

But when the lease, either by covenant to repair, which by implication gives the lessor a right of entry for the purpose of making repairs (Barron v. Liedloff, 95 Minn. 474 , ), or by an express reservation of a right of entry for that purpose, retains sufficient control in the lessor to enable him to make repairs, the duty owed to users of abutting property is not suspended because he has the power to perform his obligation and the reason for otherwise suspending it is gon

La Pray v. Lavoris Chemical Co. 117 Minn. 152 , ; Barron v. Liedloff, 95 Minn. 474 , .

Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520 , ; Daley v. Towne, 127 Minn. 231 , ; Ames v. Brandvold, 119 Minn. 521 , ; Barron v. Leidloff, 95 Minn. 474 , .

Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520 , ; Tvedt v. Wheeler, 70 Minn. 161 , ; Kayser v. Lindell, 73 Minn. 123 , ; Barron v. Liedloff, 95 Minn. 474 , ; Farley v. Byers, 106 Minn. 260 , , 130 A. S. R. 613; Ames v. Brandvold, 119 Minn. 521 , ; Daley v. Towne, 127 Minn. 231 , ; Keegan vG.

1038 ; Barron v. Liedloff, 95 Minn. 474 , 104 N.W.

This apt quotation from Daley v. Towne, supra, disposes of this appeal without much further discussion: “The case at bar is not a case where the landlord covenants to repair and negligently fails to do so (Good v. Von Hamert, 114 Minn. 393 , ; Barron v. Liedloff, 95 Minn. 474 , ); nor a case where the premises are let with a nuisance upon them (Isham v. Broderick, 89 Minn. 397 , ); nor a case where *121 the landlord retains general control over passageways, halls and the like, and there is thus

Long v. Gieriet, 57 Minn. 278 , ; Barron v. Liedloff, 95 Minn. 474 , ; Warren v. Hodges, 137 Minn. 389 , ; 18 Am.

The gist of the action is the breach of the contract, and as said in Whittaker v. Collins, supra, “it is in substance, whatever may be the form of pleading, an action on the contract.” The cases of Barron v. Liedloff, 95 Minn. 474 , ; Good v. Von Hemert, 114 Minn. 393 , , and Glidden v. Goodfellow, 124 Minn. 101 , , L.R.A.

Barron v. Liedloff, 95 Minn. 474 , ; Good v. Von Hemert, 114 Minn. 393 , ; Glidden v. Goodfellow, 124 Minn. 101 , ; Glidden v. Second Avenue Investment Co. 125 Minn. 471 , ; Daley v. Towne, 127 Minn. 231 , .

The case at bar is not a case where the landlord covenants to repair and negligently fails to do so (Good v. Von Hemert, 114 Minn. 393 , ; Barron v. Liedloff, 95 Minn. 474 , ); nor a case where the premises are let with a nuisance upon them (Isham v. Broderick, 89 Minn. 397 , ); nor a case where the landlord retains general control over passageways, halls,.

Barron v. Liedloff, 95 Minn. 474 , .

Barron v. Liedloff, 95 Minn. 474 , ; Williams v. Dickson, 122 Minn. 49 , ; Good v. Von Hemert, 114 Minn. 393 , ; Nash v. Minneapolis Mill Co. 24 Minn. 501 , 31 Am.

Barron v. Liedloff, 05 Minn. 474 , ; Good v. Von Hemert, 114 Minn. 393 , .

Barron v. Liedloff, 95 Minn. 474 , .

Barron v. Liedloff, 95 Minn. 474 , .