New Jersey it is held that a tenant for a definite term holding over after the expiration of his term without the assent of his landlord, becomes a tenant at sufferance; and, by force of the statute (2 Gen. Stat., p. 1915, § 3) a landlord may recover from such tenant a reasonable satisfaction which is not exclusively measured by the rent stipulated for the original term. Poole v. Engelke, 61 N. J. L. 124 (38 Atl. Rep. 823). In Illinois it is held that where there is a tenancy at will or by sufferance, such a tenancy is terminated by a demand for possession without any notice to quit. Peters v. Balke, 170 Ill. 304 (48 N. E. Rep. 1012).

Sec. 460.

Holding over. Where the lease provides that the lessee is to have the premises for one year and as much longer as he shall remain in business, he does not become a tenant from year to year by holding over after the expiration of the year, but he may terminate the lease at any time. Harty v. Harris, 120 N. C. 408 (27 S. E. Rep. 90). Where, at the expiration of a lease which gives the lessee the right to a renewal, the premises are untenantable, and he continues his possession under an agreement with the lessor to repair them, he is not liable for rent after his removal therefrom, the lessor having failed to perform his agreement. Fisher v. Nergararian, 112 Mich. 327 (70 N. W. Rep. 1009). Where a tenant, with the consent of his landlord, express or implied, holds over his term, the law presumes a continuation of the original tenancy for another like term and upon the same conditions; but this is not a conclusive presumption and may be overcome by evidence showing a different agreement between the parties. Bradley v. Slater, 50 Neb. 682 (70 N. W. Rep. 258). See opinion for particular evidence held insufficient to rebut the presumption. The right of a lessor to treat his lessee's holding over without his consent as a renewal of his lease, is not affected by the fact that such holding over was caused by the unavoidable sickness of the lessee and that he did not intend to renew but to vacate as soon as possible. Mason v. Weirengo's Estate, 113 Mich. 151 (71 N. W. Rep. 489). The holding over by one of several partners under a lease made to the partnership, the other partners retiring, does not renew or continue the tenancy

Buchanan v.

after the expiration of the original term. Whitman, 151 N. Y. 253 (45 N. E. Rep. 556). A tenant for a definite period under an agreement binding him to pay a stipulated rent, who continues his tenancy after the expiration of the lease with the assent of the landlord, becomes a tenant at the rent specified. Hobbs v. Batory, 86 Md. 68 (37 Atl. Rep. 713). Particular holding over held to create a tenancy from year to year. Amsden v. Atwood, 69 Vt. 527 (38 Atl. Rep. 263). Construing and applying Ind. Rev. Stat. 1894, §§ 7094, 7106, it is held that the possession of a tenant holding over after a failure to pay rent in advance, as stipulated in his lease, is unlawful without notice to quit; that his landlord may maintain an immediate action for possession and damages, recovering the delinquent rent as damages and from his judgment there is no exemption. Thomas v. Walmer, 18 Ind. App. 112 (46 N. E. Rep. 695).

Sec. 461. Notice to quit. Where a monthly tenancy is claimed, a notice to quit at a period sooner or later than the day upon which the monthly tenancy expires is insufficient. Waters v. Williamson, 59 N. J. L. 337 (36 Atl. Rep. 665). Where the method for the termination of a lease by notice as prescribed by its terms is complied with, the statutory notice to quit is not required. Quidort v. Bullitt, 60 N. J. L. 119 (36 Atl. Rep. 881). In New Jersey a tenant from year to year is entitled to three months' notice to quit. Waters v. Williamson, 59 N. J. L. 337 (36 Atl. Rep. 665). Construing Kan. Gen. Stat. 1889, par. 3614, providing that "all tenancies from year to year may be determined by at least three months' notice in writing given the tenant prior to the expiration of the year," a tenant from year to year is not required to give notice to the landlord of his intention to sever the relation and to quit the premises. Nelson v. Ware, 57 Kan. 670 (47 Pac. Rep. 540). Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 80, § 9, providing that a lease may be terminated for any default in its terms by the lessee by ten days' notice to quit, given at any time after the default, applies to leases existing at the time of the enactment of the statute; and under the provision of the statute that "no other notice or demand of possession or termination of such tenancy shall be necessary," it is held that specific

necessary.

Woods v. Soucy,

demand for the rent due is not 166 Ill. 407 (47 N. E. Rep. 67). Under Ind. Rev. Stat. 1894, §7094, the possession of a tenant holding over, after failure to pay rent in advance, as stipulated in his lease, is unlawful without notice to quit. Thomas v. Walmer, 18 Ind. App. 112 (46 N. E. Rep.695). Where a landlord who notified his tenant at will, whose rent had been $100.00 per month in advance, that the tenancy should terminate at a certain time or the rent to be doubled, subsequently accepted from the tenant, two checks for $100.00 each, sent at different times by the tenant in a letter stating that each was for a certain month's rent, he will be held to have waived any rights given him by his notice. Murphy v. Little, 69 Vt. 261 (37 Atl. Rep. 968). Where, at the time of an auction sale of premises occupied by a tenant at will from year to year, he agrees to terminate his tenancy at a certain time, he will be estopped to claim the notice to quit, to which he was entitled under the other tenancy, where the purchase was made in reliance upon his new agreement. Woodbury v. Butler, 67 N. H. 545 (38 Atl. Rep. 379). The fact that a lease is unrecorded and for that reason invalid as to third persons, does not relieve one who has purchased the rights of a lessee thereunder and occupied the premises, from his obligation to give notice of his intention to quit. Emrich v. Union Stock-Yard Co., 86 Md. 482 (38 Atl. Rep. 943). The landlord's common law right of reentry after default in payment of rent and notice served upon the tenant to terminate the lease, if such reentry is made peaceably, is not abridged by How. Ann. Mich. Stat., §§ 8299, 8308. Smith v. Detroit L. & Bldg. Ass'n, 115 Mich. 340 (73 N. W. Rep. 395; 39 L. R. A. 410).

Sec. 462. Abandonment of premises by tenantRights and remedies of landlord. Where a tenant, under a lease for a definite period, abandons the premises before the expiration of his lease, the landlord is not required to relet for the protection of the tenant, but may, at his election, suffer the premises to remain vacant, and recover his rent for the remainder of the term. Merrill v. Willis, 51 Neb. 162 (70 N. W. Rep. 914). The court say: "The rule sanctioned by the decided weight of authority, if indeed there can be said to be

a diversity of opinion on the subject, is that the landlord may in such case, at his election, relet the premises upon the abandonment thereof by the tenant, in which case the measure of his damage will be the agreed rental less the amount realized on account of such reletting; or he may permit the premises to remain vacant until the end of the term, and recover his rent in accordance with the terms of the lease. See Hayward v. Ramge, 33 Neb. 836 (51 N. W. Rep. 229); Schuisler v. Ames, 16 Ala. 73 (1 Am. Dec. 168); Tully v. Dunn, 42 Ala. 262; Rice v. Dudley, 65 Ala. 68; Ledoux v. Jones, 20 La. Ann. 539; Milling v. Becker, 96 Pa. St. 182; Randall v. Thompson, 1 Willson, Civ. Cas. Ct. App., § 1102; Respini v. Porta, 89 Cal. 464 (26 Pac. Rep. 967; 23 Am. St. Rep. 488); Clendinning v. Lindner (Super. N. Y.), 30 N. Y. Supp. 543; Underhill v. Collins, 132 N. Y. 269 (30 N. E. Rep. 576); Bowen v. Clarke, 22 Ore. 566 (30 Pac. Rep. 430; 29 Am. St. Rep. 625)." Where the receiver of an insolvent lessee vacated the premises and the lessor relets the same, a presentation of a claim by the latter to the receiver for the difference between the amount of rental reserved in the first and second leases is not a cancellation of the open, subsisting engagement and substitution of a claim for a contingent liability of the original lessee, which the receiver had. no power to recognize. People v. St. Nicholas Bank, 151 N. Y. 592 (45 N. E. Rep. 1129). Where a lessee abandons a lease and refuses to carry it out, the lessor may sell the same at public auction and recover at once the difference between the amount which he was to receive under the violated contract and that which he does receive from the purchaser of the lease; and the lessor's rights are not affected by the fact that he becomes a purchaser of the lease at such sale where it is regularly made upon due notice. James v. Kibler's Adm'r, 94 Va. 165 (26 S. E. Rep. 417).

Sec. 463. Attornment by tenant. Where a tenant in possession, without his landlord's consent attorns to a third party, the latter not having acquired the interest of the landlord in the real estate, either by grant or operation of law, the possessory rights of the landlord are not affected thereby, as such an attornment is void. Perkins v. Potts, 52 Neb. 110

(71 N. W. Rep. 1017); Perkins v. Potts, 53 Neb. 444 (73 N. W. Rep. 936). Where payment of rent is made by a lessee to the purchaser of the reversion on threat of suit, it will be regarded as an attornment, though the payment was expressed to be merely for the use and occupancy of the premises, and was accompanied by protest and denial of the purchaser's right to receive the money, and also a declaration that the lessee did not recognize the relation of landlord and tenant as existing between him and such purchaser. McCardell v. Williams, 19 R. I. 701 (36 Atl. Rep. 719). Under Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 80, § 14, an assignee of the lessor has the same remedy by action for the recovery of rent as his lessor irrespective of an attornment due him by the tenant. Barnes v. Northern Trust Co., 169 Ill. 112 (48 N. E. Rep. 31). Under N. H. Pub. Stat., ch. 246, § 22, a grantee of the premises occupied by a tenant, becomes subrogated to the rights and remedies which the grantor would have had if the estate had not been conveyed. Woodbury v. Butler, 67 N. H. 545 (38 Atl. Rep. 879).

Sec. 464.

Conveyance of leased premises-Apportionment of rent. Where a lease provides for the payment of rent at specified periods, the rent for each period of time is an indivisible item, and if the lessor or landlord conveys the premises before the rent accrues, he cannot recover a proportionate amount of the rent due at the time of the conveyance although there has been no eviction by the holder of the new title or an attornment to him. Applying this rule to a conveyance of leased premises, where the lease provided for the monthly payment of rent payable "after the termination of each month," it is held that the lessee had the whole of the last day of the month in which to pay his rent and a conveyance before the close of that day by the lessor barred him of any right to claim the rent and for the purpose of determining the rights of the parties in such a case, fractions of a day may be considered. Hammond v. Thompson, 168 Mass. 531 (47 N. E. Rep. 137).

Sec. 465. Surrender.

Sending a key of the premises to the owner without more, is not such a surrender and