The lessor holds only the reversion, the lessee having the land. It is common to speak of the lessor who makes a sale of the premises, as selling the land; but in law, all he can sell is his right to the land, and this means the reversion. If he sells the whole of this to one buyer, the buyer takes his place, acquires his rights, and is subject to all of his obligations which run with the land. (m) But if he sells a part only of the reversion, or if he sells the whole in parcels to different purchasers, this does not extinguish the obligations of the lessee, nor does it transfer them all to the purchaser. There must now be an apportionment of the rent. And this may arise also if the lessor, retaining the reversion, assigns a portion of the rent to one assignee and another part to another person. (n) The common-law doctrine of entirety of contract forbade this apportionment. But it was long ago permitted from obvious necessity. Where the transfer of the land or premises is by aliquot parts, as half, or one-third, to one transferee, and the residue to another, there is no difficulty in apportioning the rent in the same way. But if the owner of a house under lease sells so many rooms, or the owner of a farm sells so many fields, the question will arise, in what manner the apportionment is to be made; that is, whether in the ratio of quantity, or in that of value. And it is now settled, that it must be in proportion to value, and not quantity; and that this is a question of fact, for the jury to settle upon the evidence offered them. (o)

(k) Turnery. Meymott, 1 Bing. 158; Taunton v. Costar, 7 T R. 431; Lacey v. Lear, Peake, Ad. Cas. 210. Whether a tenant in possession, who, after a good notice has expired, has been assaulted and forcibly expelled from the premises, may have his action against the landlord, seems to be doubtful. See Newton v. Harland, 1 Man. & G. 644; Harvey v.

Brydges, 14 M. & W. 437; Wright v. Burroughes, 3 C. B. 685.

(/) Collins v. Canty, 6 Cush. 415; Blythe v Dennett, 6 E. L. & E. 424; s. c. 13 C. B. 178. See also Hunter v, Oster-hondt, 11 Barb. 33.

(m) See ante, pp. *231, *232.

(n) Bliss v. Collins, 5 B. & Ald. 876.

1 But if the tenancy is terminated between stated pay-days, no rent is recoverable after the last preceding pay-day. Cameron v. Little, 62 Me. 550. And see Emmes v. Feeley, 132 Mass. 346. - K.

If the owner and the buyer or buyers of the reversion agree together as to the apportionment of rent, the Lessee is bound by this, because it is of no importance to him to whom he pays the rent.

The rent must be apportioned also, if the reversion is divided among many persons, by act of law; as by descent, or sale on execution, or by decree. (p)

The lessor cannot himself apportion it by his own wrong. If he enters on a part with the consent of the tenant, the rent is porportionally abated; but if he enters wrongfully and ousts the lessee from a part of the premises, the whole rent is suspended until the lessee is restored.(q)

There may also be an apportionment by time; as if the lessor dies in the middle of the term. At common law there could be no apportionment of rent in this case, and the lessee is free from the rent to the death of the lessor. But by statutes in England, (r) and by similar statutory provisions or usage in this country, there is always an apportionment in such case, the lessee being liable to the representatives of the deceased for the rent until he died, and to the heir afterwards. (s)