The obligation to pay rent may be appor tioned; for, as rent is incident to the rever sion, it will become payable to the assignees of the respective portions thereof whenever that reversion is severed by an act of the parties or of the law. Daniels v. Richard son, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 569 ; Nellis v. Lathrop, 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 121, 34 Am. Dec. 285 ; Hare v. Proudfoot, 6 U. C. Q. B. 0. S. 617. But the tenant's consent is necessary for an ap portionment when made by the landlord, un less the proportion of rent chargeable upon each portion of the land has been otherwise determined; Bliss v. Collins, 5 B. & Aid. 876; Roberts v. Snell, 1 M. & G. 577; Far ley v. Craig, 11 N. J. L. 262 ; Ryerson v. Quackenbush, 26 N. J. L. 236. When the reversion is severed by act of the law there is an apportionment without the consent of tenants ; Buffum v. Deane, 4 Gray (Mass.) 385 ; Crosby v. Loop, 13 Ill. 625 ; Cole v. Patterson, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 456; and where lands held under lease were severed by the conveyance of a portion thereof from the lessor to a stranger it was held that the rent was apportioned between the several owners of the reversion ; Gribbie v. Toms, 70 N. J. L. 522, 57 AU. 144, affirmed 71 N. J. L. 338, 59 Atl. 117. A tenant, however, cannot get rid of or apportion his rent by transferring the whole or a part of his lease; for if he assigns it, or underlets a portion of it, he still remains liable to his landlord for the whole ; Eliz. 633 ; Van Rensselaer v. Chadwick, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 333. Instances of an apportionment by act of law occur where there is a descent of the reversion among a number of heirs, or upon a judicial sale of a portion of the premises ; for in such cases the tenant will be bound to pay rent to each of the parties for the portion of the premises belonging to them respectively. So, if a man dies, leaving a widow, she will have a right to receive one-third of the rent, while the remaining two-thirds will be pay able to his heirs ; so, if a part of the demised premises be taken for public purposes, the tenant is entitled to an apportionment ; Co. Litt. 148 a; Cole v. Patterson, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 456 ; Crosby v. Loop, 13 Ill. 625 ; Schuyl kill & D. Imp. & R. Co. v. Schmoele, 57 Pa. 271. At common law rent could not be appor tioned as to time; 2 Ves. Sr. 672; Bank of Pennsylvania v. Wise, 3 Watts (Pa.) 394. But various statutes, such as 11 Geo. II. c. 19, both in England and the United States, have mitigated the hardships resulting from an enforcement of this rule. See Tayl. L. & T. § 389.
A tenant is estopped to deny the validity of his landlord's titlE; Hacket v. Marmet Co., 52 Fed. 268, 3 C. C. A. 76, 8 U. S. App. 149 ; Dixon v. Stewart, 113 N. C. 410, 18 S. E. 325 ; Ricketson v. Galligan, 89 Wis. 394, 62 N. W. 87 ; Knowles v. Murphy, 107 Cal. 107, 40 Pac. 111; Elliott v. Smith, 23 Pa. 131; Ham. ill v. Jalonick, 3 Okl. 223, 41 Pac. 139; Pappe v. Trout, 3 Oki. 260, 265, 41 Pac. 397; Sex ton v. Carley, 147 Ill. 269, 35 N. E. 471; Ver nam v. Smith, 15 N. Y. 327 ; unless he first surrender to him the possession ; McKissick v. Ashby, 98 Cal. 422, 33 Pac. 729; Bertram v. Cook, 32 Mich. 518. Under this rule one who goes into possession under the guardian or minor heirs cannot question their title; Wolf v. Holton, 104 Mich. 107, 62 N. W. 174; even after the expiration of the lease, the tenant is bound by the same rule, unless he surrender possession or give notice that he will thereafter claim under another and val id title ; Kiernan v. Terry, 26 Or. 494, 38 Pac. 671; this applies to persons who have entered by the owner's permission, and while in possession never denied his title, and their assignees are likewise estopped; McLennan v. Grant, 8 Wash. 603, 36 Pac. 682. After the termination of the lease, the lessee may, without a surrender of possession, assert a claim to a superior title; Dodge v. Phelan, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 441, 21 S. W. 309; but a tenant in possession under a lease, who aft erwards obtains an outstanding title to an undivided interest in the premises, cannot sue the lessor for partition without first sur rendering the possession to the lessor; Bar low v. Dahm, 97 Ala. 414, 12 South. 293, 3S
Am. St. Rep. 192. Where a widow joined in a lease with heirs, who conveyed to the tenant, the latter was still estopped to deny the tenancy as to the widow and was liable to her for her share of the rents ; Sommer v. Brewing Co., 6 Misc. 413, 26 N. Y. Supp. 865. A lessee who takes a lease from an adverse claimant to the title is estopped to deny the title of the latter when sued for rent ; Ham ilton v. Pittock, 158 Pa. 457, 27 Atl. 1079. The tenant is not estopped from showing that the title under which he entered has expired or been extinguished by operation of law ;' Winn v. Strickland, 34 Fla. 610, 16• South. 606 ; or that the 'landlord has parted with his title; West Shore Mills Co. v. Ed wards, 24 Or. 475, 33 Pac. 987; although one who enters under a tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord without surrendering possession, yet if he enters under a valid lease, he is not estopped from defending his possession under it, but the landlord is estopped in such a case from denying the right of the lessee to possession under a lease expressly conferring such a right; Flynn v. Hite, 107 Cal. 455, 41) Pac. 749; nor is the lessee estopped to deny the lessor's title where the land was public domain, not the subject of lease without right from the state ; Welder v. McComb, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 85, 30 S. W. 822.
The payment of rent by mistake after the• termination of the tenancy does not continue it ; Robinson v. Min. Co., 55 Mo. App. 662. The rule of estoppel does not apply where the relation of landlord and tenant has been brought about by fraud or mistake ; Sud darth v. Robertson, 118 Mo. 286, 24 S. W. 151; nor where they combined to evade the homestead laws ; McKinnis v. Mortg. Co., 55 Kan. 259, 39 Pac. 1018 ; nor does it apply to a stranger who brought goods upon the land by permission of the tenant not claim ing possession ; Padman v. Henman [1893] 2 Q. B. 168.
A tenant "may buy the title of his land lord, or, if the title be assigned or !erred to another during his lease, he may set this up in bar of the landlord's right to recover" possession of the property ; Smith v. Mundy, 18 Ala. 182, 52 Am. Dec. 221. He may, if it be done without fraud, purchase the landlord's reversion ; Stout v. Merrill, 35 Ia. 47. He may shOw, in an action for rent, that since the lease he has acquired the title of his landlord, or one superior to it; Van Etten v. Van Etten, 69 Hun 499, 23 N. Y. Supp. 711. He may not controvert his landlord's title at the time he entered, but he may show that it afterwards passed to another person; Ryerss v. Farwell, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 615; or was subsequently extinguish ed, or expired during the term; Den v. Ash more, 22 N. J. L. 261; Sherman v. Fisher, 138 Mich. 391, 101 N. W. 572 ; Duff v. Wil son, 69 Pa. 316; and he may dispute his landlord's title as against the vendee of the latter; Tewksbury v. Magraff, 33 Cal. 237. So he may show that the landlord's title, and with it his right of action, has terminat ed without the tenant's fault; Franklin County Grammar School v. Bailey, 62 Vt. 467, 20 Atl. 820, 10 L. R. A. 405. The rule of estoppel does not prevent the tenant from acquiring at or through a judicial sale, dur ing the tenancy, the title which the land lord held at the commencement of the ten ancy, or from holding that title in his own right and adversely to the landlord ; Elliott v. Smith, 23 Pa. 131; Tilghman v. Little, 13 Ill. 239. But the relation of landlord and tenant is so far one of trust and confidence as to render it inequitable for the tenant to purchase the property at a sale of which the landlord had not notice, under a judg ment recovered by the tenant himself against a former owner upon a bond secured by a mortgage on the land ; Matthew's Appeal, 104 Pa. 444 ; or by unfair practices at the sale to secure the property at an inadequate price ; Cocks v. Izard, 7 Wall. -(U. S.) 559, 19 L. Ed. 275.