Upon an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, the district court of appeal for the second appellate district reversed the judgment. An opinion prepared by James, J., was filed, Shaw, J., concurring, and Allen, P. J., merely concurring in the judgment of reversal. Two main propositions were considered in the opinion, the conclusion of Mr. Justice James being favorable to the appellant on one of these, and in support of the respondent’s contentions on the other. Both parties were dissatisfied, and each filed a petition to have the cause transferred to and heard in this court. An order of transfer was made.

The opinion of Mr. Justice J ames reads as follows: —

We are content to adopt the foregoing opinion as a state ment of our own views of the case. It may be well, however, to briefly add to it a notice of some contentions which have been more elaborately advanced since the transfer of the cause to this court.

A reading of the complaint indicates that it was framed on the theory that the repudiation of the lease by the lessee operated at once to mature all the rent reserved in the lease and to enable the lessor to recover, not only the installments already accrued, but those to accrue in the future. This contention has been virtually abandoned by the counsel for respondent, although it appears to be still advanced by counsel appearing as amicus curice. But the proposition cannot be successfully maintained. It finds no support in the authorities with the exception of a few cases decided in Louisiana, a jurisdiction which is largely governed by the doctrines of the civil law. The general common-law rule is that rent, as such, is not payable until it falls due under the lease (1 Underhill on Landlord & Tenant, see. 333) and this rule is not altered by the fact that the tenant has abandoned the premises and notified the landlord that he will repudiate the lease (Nicholas v. Sift, 118 Ga. 922 , [45 S. B. 708]). Viewing the action as one for rent, it is not distinguishable, in principle, from Tatum v. Ackerman, 141 Cal. 357 , [ 113 Am. St. Rep. 276 , 7 Ann. Cas. 541, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 908, 83 Pac. 151 ].)

But it is argued that the plaintiff had the right to recover on the doctrine of "anticipatory breach” (Alderson v. Houston, 154, Cal. 1, [ 96 Pac. 884 ]); that is to say, that the defendant’s repudiation of the obligations of his lease gave the plaintiff the right to treat the entire contract as broken, and to recover at once the damage sustained by such breach. But in an action to recover for such breach, the measure of damage would be, not the total rent reserved, but the difference between the rent to accrue and the value of the remaining portion of the term. (See eases cited in the foregoing opinion of James, J.) The complaint does not aver that plaintiff has sustained any damage by the defendant’s repudiation, nor does it state any facts from which the amount of such damage may be inferred. It avers merely the non-payment for two months, and the repudiation, and then asks judgment for six hundred dollars. There is no allegation that the premises could not have been rented, during the rest of the term, for an amount equal to the rent agreed to be paid by the defendant. The respondent seeks to overcome the want of averments showing the extent of damage sustained by citing a passage in Alderson v. Houston, 154 Cal. 1 , [ 96 Pac. 884 ], where the court declared that the repudiation of a contract made out a grima facte case of liability on the part of the defendant for the entire sum which he had agreed to pay, and threw upon him the burden of showing that the plaintiff could have reduced the damage. Alderson v. Houston was a case of an agent wrongfully discharged and thus prevented from performing the contract on his part. The opinion expressly pointed out that the repudiation of a contract will not be deemed a prevention of performance where the obligations repudiated or unfulfilled by the defendant are not conditions precedent to performance by the plaintiff. The lease here in question did not bind the lessor by any covenants which were conditional upon the performance by the lessee of his obligations. If, therefore, the lessor sought to hold the lessee for the damage occasioned by an unauthorized repudiation of the lease, she was bound to allege and prove the amount of such damage.

The respondent makes the further attempt to meet the want of an allegation of damage by referring to Riser v. Walton, 78 Cal. 490 , [ 21 Pac. 362 ], where the court used language to the effect that where a breach of an obligation is alleged, a prayer for damages in a certain sum may be treated as equivalent to an averment that plaintiff has suffered damage in that sum. But it appears that, in that case, the trial had proceeded upon the theory that the amount of damage was properly in issue, and the affirmance was rested, at least in part, on that ground. In the later case of Lehnhardt v. Jennings, 119 Cal. 192 , [ 48 Pac. 56 , 51 Pac. 195 ], the court held adversely to the claim that the prayer of the complaint was necessarily conclusive of the question of jurisdiction regardless of the averments on which such prayer was founded. However, even if we assume that Riser v. Walton decides that a prayer for judgment, in an action for damages, will supply the want of allegations showing the extent of the damage, the rule contended for could not be applied here. In Riser v. Walton the complaint showed upon its face that the sole cause of action relied upon was one for damages for deceit. In this case, as we have already suggested, the complaint was drawn in the belief that the facts al leged entitled the plaintiff to recover immediately the rent for the entire term, and the plaintiff undertook to set forth a demand for such rent. That this is the true interpretation of the pleading is confirmed by the language of the briefs first filed by the respective parties. There was nothing to indicate that damages for breach of an entire contract were claimed. In such a case, a court would not be warranted in saying that an allegation that plaintiff had suffered damage in the sum of six hundred dollars was to be implied from the mere fact that judgment in this amount had been asked.

On the other point, that of the defense attempted to be set up by the answer, little need be added to the argument contained in the opinion above quoted. The averments of the answer show that the defendant does not claim a right to have water flow, unimpeded by any act of the plaintiff, but that he seeks to impose upon the plaintiff the affirmative burden of keeping the water system and conduits in repair. Such duty is not included within the reasonable interpretation of the word “appurtenances.” (Watkins v. Green, 22 R. I. 34, [ 46 Atl. 38 ].) The introduction of parol evidence in support of the allegations of the answer would not, therefore, be in aid of the interpretation of the lease. It would result in showing, in violation of the parol evidence rule, that there was, beyond the terms embodied in the lease, an antecedent oral agreement binding the lessor to do something more than she had in her lease agreed to do. Or, stating it in another way, it would, instead of showing what the “appurtenances” were, show that the lessor had undertaken to relieve the lessee of the burden which (except to the extent of the provision of Civ. Code, sec. 1942), would rest upon him (Van Every v. Ogg, 59 Cal. 563 ; Gately v. Campbell, 124 Cal. 520 , [ 57 Pac. 567 ]), of keeping in repair the agencies requisite to the enjoyment of the appurtenances.

The judgment is reversed, with directions to the trial court to dismiss the action.

Shaw, J., Angellotti, J., Lorigan, J., and Melvin, J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.