Doe v. 7 Term R. Doe v. Bell, 5 Term R. 471. term, as when the crop did not come to perfection in less than two years. And he would not say that the nature of the ground, or the course of husbandry, might not deserve to be considered, when such a custom came nakedly before the Court. As a custom the claim could not be supported; therefore it was a lease from year to year. 25. Where a tenant for life granted a lease for years, which was void against the remainder-man, and the latter, before he elected to avoid it, received rent from the tenant; it was held to be a tenancy from year to year. 26. Where an agreement for a longer term than three years is made by parol, which is void, as to the Tit. 32. c. 3. duration of the term, by the statute of frauds; there is a tenancy from year to year: regulated in every other respect by the agreement. Clayton v. Bind the 27. In a subsequent case it appeared in evidence that the defendant had held the premises for two or three years, under a parol demise for 21 years: this being void by the statute of frauds, it was contended at the trial that the holding should have been stated according to the legal operation of it, as a tenancy at will. Mr. Justice Rook considering it as a tenancy from year to year, over-ruled the objection. Upon a motion to set aside the verdict, on the ground of a misdirection, Lord Kenyon said the direction was right; for such a holding now operated as a tenancy from year to year. The meaning of the statute of frauds was, that such an agreement should not operate as a term. But what was then considered as a tenancy at will, had since been properly construed to enure as a tenancy from year to year. 28. Where a tenancy from year to year has once commenced, it continues against any person to whom the lessor afterwards grants the reversion. And Mr. Birch v. 29. In a subsequent case it was held, that a te- Maddon v. White, nancy from year to year would continue against an 2 Term R. infant. 159. to Executors. 30. Tenancies from year to year do not determine And devolve by the death of the tenant, but devolve to his executors or administrators. Porter, 31. A person having an estate from year to year Doe v. died intestate; the question was, what interest vested in his administrator. 3 Term R. 13. 15 Ves. 241. Lord Kenyon said-Whatever chattel the intestate had, must vest in the administrator, as his personal representative. Then it was supposed that some inconveniences might result from such a determination, but he saw none; and many inconveniences might attend a different decision. The tenancy from year to year succeeded to the old tenancy at will, which was attended with many inconveniences. In order to obviate them, the courts very early raised an implied contract for a year; and added, that the tenant could not be removed at the end of the year, without receiving six months previous notice. All the inconveniences which arose between the original parties themselves; and against whom the wisdom of the law had endeavoured to provide, by raising the Rex v. Stone, implied contract; existed equally in the case of their 6 Term R. personal representatives. 295. Six Months Notice to quit neces sary. 32. It appears from the preceding case, and many others, that a tenant from year to year is entitled to six months notice to quit, ending at the expiration of the year; and that he must also give the landlord the same notice. "TEN SECTION 1. tion of. ENANT at sufferance (says Lord Coke) is he Descripthat at first came in by lawful demise, and after his estate ended, continueth in possession; and wrongfully holdeth over." 2. Thus, where a tenant pour auter vie continues in Idem. possession after the death of the cestui que vie; or a tenant for years holds over his term; they become tenants at sufferance. So, where a person makes a lease at will, and dies; the estate is thereby determined; and if the lessee continues in possession, he is tenant at sufferance. 3. Where a man comes to a particular estate, by 1 Inst. 57 b. the act of the party; there, if he holds over, he is 2-134. tenant at sufferance. But where he comes to the particular estate, by act in law; as if a guardian, after the full age of the heir, continues in possession, he is not tenant at sufferance, but an abator. 4. No person can be tenant at sufferance against 1 Inst. 57 b. the king, for no laches can be imputed to him in not entering; therefore, if the king's tenant holds over, he will be considered as an intruder. This Tenant Who may At what Time Notice may be given. Cutting v. 5. There is no privity of estate between a tenant at sufferance, and the owner of the land; for this tenant only holds by the laches of the owner. 6. Tenants at sufferance were not liable to pay any rent for the lands, because it was the folly of the owners to suffer them to continue in possession, after the determination of the preceding estate. But now, by the statute 4 Geo. II. c. 28. § 1. it is enacted, that where any tenant holds over, after demand made, and notice in writing given for delivering the possession; such persons so holding over shall pay double the yearly value of the lands so detained, for so long time as the same are detained; to be recovered by action of debt; against the recovering of which "penalty, there shall be no relief in equity. 7. The landlord, by himself, or by his agent lawfully authorized, is the proper person to give notice. But it was held, in a modern case, that a receiver, appointed by the Court of Chancery, is an agent for the landlord, authorized by this act to give a tenant notice to quit the premises; and that a notice in writing to quit, is of itself a sufficient demand. 8. A notice to quit under the statute 4 Geo. II. may be given previous to the expiration of the lease under which the tenant holds the land. 9. Lands were leased from the 10th October 1763, for eleven years. The person entitled to the rever sion gave a written notice to the tenant on the 30th September 1773, and again repeated the like notice on the 7th October 1774, or to pay double value. On the 10th October the reversioner went on the premises, and demanded possession, which was refused. In an action for double value, the jury gave a ver. dict for the plaintiff. A motion was made for a new trial, Because, 1. By the statute 4 Geo. II. notice to |