The premises in question consist of two old buildings, one of which had been at one time used for a mill and the other as a stable. D had been in possession of both buildings under separate leases. A new lease was executed for a period of five years covering both buildings. The lease contained the following language: 'The lessee having made alterations in said premises during its present tenure thereof, agrees to restore the said premises at the termination of this lease to their original condition as required, less reasonable wear and tear.' The lease contained also the usual covenants regarding the care of the buildings and the condition in which they should be surrendered at the termination of the tenancy. The leases contained no restrictive clauses as to the use of the buildings, and during the period of the first lease, D made certain alterations in the buildings. Certain other changes were subsequently made, and one building was so changed as to render it convenient for use as a soap factory. It is for these changes that this action has been brought. The bill was filed during the term of the lease. P sought an accounting for waste and an injunction. The master found that the buildings of the complainant had been damaged to the amount of $1328.28. The measure of damages applied by him was the cost of restoring the premises to the condition in which they were at the time the lease was made. D objected and a decree was entered, in which the chancellor held the proper measure of damages for waste to be the decrease in the market value of the buildings by reason of each of the several acts of waste. P offered no evidence as to decrease in the market value of the buildings, and the decree entered awarded P nominal damages in the sum of $5. P appealed and that court affirmed the decree but reversed the holding of the superior court as to the measure of damages and held such to be the cost of restoring the premises to their former condition. D appealed.