(u) Dann v. Spurrier, 3 B. & P. 399; Goodright v Richardson, 3 T. R. 462. Where a house was leased at a certain rent, "to be paid quarterly, or half quarterly if required," and the tenant entered and paid his rent quarterly for one year, after which the landlord, without previous demand or notice, distrained for half a quarter's rent, alleged to be then due, it was held, that he had no right so to do, but must give previous notice of his election. Mallam v. Arden, 10 Bing. 299

(?;) Doe v. Barton, 11 A. & E. 307; Fleming v. Gooding, 10 Bing. 549; Doe v Smythe, 4 M. & Sel. 347; Alchorne v. Gomme, 2 Bing 54; Gravenor v. Wood-house, 7 J. B. Moore, 289; Parry v. House, Holt, 489, and the learned note by the reporter; Willison v. Watkins, 3 Pet. 43 , Doe v. Heath, 13 Ired. L. 498; Fussel-man v. Worthington, 14 Ill. 135; Pierce v. Minturn, 1 Cal. 470. But see Mount-ney v Collier, 16 E. L. & E. 232; s. c. 1 E. & B. 630; Den v. Ashmore, 2 N. J. 261, Shultz v. Elliott, 11 Humph. 183; Funk's Lessee v. Kincaid, 5 Md. 404. See Ryer-son v Eldred, 18 Mich. 12; Ronaldson v.

Tabor, 43 Ga. 230; Bonney v. Foss, 62 Me. 248; Hardin v. Forsythe, 99 Ill. 312; Stagg v. Eureka Co. 56 Mo. 317; Campbell v. Shipley, 41 Md. 81; Lucas v. Brooks, 18 Wall. 436; Prevot v. Lawrence, 51 N. Y. 219.

(w) Hamilton v Marsden, 6 Binn. 45; Baskin v. Seechrist, 6 Penn. St. 154; Brown v Dysinger, 1 Rawle, 408; Miller v. Mc-Brier, 14 S. & R. 382. See Wyoming Co. v Price, 81 Penn. St. 156; Wilborn v. Whitfield, 44 Ga. 51; Camarillo v. Fenlon, 49 Cal. 202; Jenckes v. Cook, 9 R. I. 520; Evans v. Bidwell, 76 Penn. St. 497; Hig-gins v. Turner, 61 Mo. 249

(x) Greeno v. Munson, 9 Vt. 83; Hall v. Dewey, 10 id. 593; Carpenter v. Thompson, 3 N. H. 204; Blake v. Howe, 1 Aik. 306; Lord v Bigelow, 8 Vt. 445; Doe v. Whittick, Gow, 195; Doe v. Frowd, 4 Bing 557; Doe v. Grubb, 10 B. & C. 816; Doe v. Pittman, 2 Nev. & M. 673; Doe v. Long, 9 C. & P. 773; Doe v. Evans, 9 M. & W. 48.

(y) Doe v. Cooper, 1 Man. & G 135. And see Elliott v. Smith, 23 Penn. St, 131.

The payment of rent admits, prima facie, a tenancy, by implication; (a) but this inference may be prevented and the evidence rebutted by showing that the payment was made under a mistake. (b)

It was always admitted, that an actual expulsion of the tenant, by the lessor, suspended the rent; (c)2 but it was also held, that no conduct of the lessor, however offensive, if it were less than expulsion, affected the obligation of rent. (d) But this rule of law has been essentially modified. It seems to be now settled, at least in this country, that a lessor, by conduct of extreme outrage and indecency, is barred from his action for rent. (e) And if the lessee proves an interference with his beneficial enjoyment of the premises, which is material, and intentional, this would be a defence against such an action. (f)3 But the interference must

(z) Doe v. Cawdor, 1 C. M. & R. 398; Doe v. Stanion, 1 M. & W. 695; Doe v. Pasquali, Peake, Cas. 196.

(zz) 18 N. H. 222.

(za) Moffat v. Strong, 9 Bosw. 57.

(zb) Zimmerman v. Marchland, 23 Ind. 474.

(zc) Brown v. Keller, 32 Ill. 151.

(a) Gouldsworth v. Knights, 11 M. & W. 337; Fonuer v. Duplock, 2 Bing. 10.

(b) Claridge v'. Mackenzie, 4 Man. & G. 143; Doe v. Barton, 11 A. & E. 307; Doe v. Brown, 7 A. & E. 447; Anderson v. Smith, 63 Ill. 126.

(c) Salmon v. Smith, 1 Wms. Saund.

202, 204, n. (2) , Co. Litt 148 b; As-cough's case, 9 Rep. 135; Pendleton v. Dyett, 4 Cowen, 581; Bennett v. Bittle, 4 Rawle, 339; Page v. Parr, Styles, 432.

(d) See the cases in the last note.

(e) Ogilvie v. Hull, 5 Hill (N. Y.), 52; Pendleton v. Dyett, 8 Cowen, 727, reversing the same case in 4 Cowen, 581; Crom-melin v. Thiess, 31 Ala. 412; Jackson v. Eddy, 12 Mo. 209. See Hilliard v. Coal Co. 41 Ohio St. 662.

(f) Cohen v. Dupont, 1 Sandf. 260; Gilhooley v. Washington, 4 Comst. 217; Jackson v. Eddy, 12 Mo. 209; Christopher v. Austin, 1 Kern. 216.

1 As by eviction or judicial sale, Duff v. Wilson, 69 Pa. 316; Lancashire v. Mason, 75 N. C. 455; or by mortgage foreclosure, Ryder v. Mansell, 66 Me. 167: Ramsdell v. Maxwell, 32 Mich. 285; as then the lessor's right to sue him ceases, St. John v. Quitzlow, 72 Ill 334; Silvey v. Sumner, 61 Mo. 253; or if the lessor's wife, in whose right he was seized, dies, Lamson v Clarkson, 113 Mass. 348. A tenant may also show that the purport and effect of the lease was entirely misapprehended. Wig-gin v. Wiggin, 58 N. H. 235. - K.

2 An entry without eviction is a mere trespass. Bartlett v. Farrington, 120 Mass. 284. So an entry to put up a sign " to let." Oastler v. Henderson, 2 Q P.. 1) 575; Pier v. Carr, 69 Pa. 326. See Colburn v. Morrill, 117 Mass. 262.

3 If a lessor's acts merely diminish the beneficial enjoyment, the tenant must abandon or continue to pay rent, De Witt v. Pierson, 112 Mass. 8; as where the lessor of a

."25 be deliberate and intentional, and only by the landlord himself, and not by another tenant, or other person. (g) If a landlord oust his tenant from any part of the demised premises, the tenant may surrender to him the rest, and be no further liable for rent. (h)1

As it is the duty of the tenant to surrender the premises to his landlord when the tenancy expires, if a stranger intrude the tenant should take legal means to recover possession, that he may at the proper time surrender the premises. And until the tenant restores full and complete possession to the landlord he is liable for his rent. (hh)2

It has been held in England that when on a regular notice to quit, the tenant duly quitted the premises and removed his goods, his accidental retaining of the key for a few days will not make him liable for the rent of another quarter. (hi)

If a landlord has gained peaceable possession of a part of the premises on the termination of the lease, he may use necessary force for acquiring possession of the remainder. (hj)

To effect a surrender before the lease terminates, there must be a mutual agreement between lessor and lessee; but this agreement need not be express, and may be inferred from the conduct of the parties. (hk)