The tenant of a dowress will after her death be tenant at sufferance of the rever sioners and cannot purchase the lands at a sale for taxes, but will be held to have re deemed the property in favor of the land lord; Lyebrook v. Hall, 73 Miss. 509, 19 South. 348.
A tenant who is under no obligation or duty to pay taxes on the property may pur chase at a tax sale during his term; Welch selbaum v. Curlett, 20 Kan. 709, 27 Am. Rep. 204 ; Higgins v. Turner, 61 Mo. 249; such purchase• not only extinguishes the land lord's title, but cuts off the lease; Ferguson v. Etter, 21 Ark. 160, 76 Am. Dec. 361; but where the tenant in possession is liable un der statute to pay the taxes, he cannot ac quire a title as against the owner by pur chasing a tax title based on a sale for taxes during the tenancy ; Smith v. Specht, 58 N. J. Eq. 47, 42 Atl. 599 ; and it has been held that, even if the tenant is not under any contractual or statutory duty to pay the taxes, a purchase of land by him under a tax sale operates only as a payment, and confers no 'title on him as against the land lord, or one claiming under the latter, nor can he acquire title as against the landlord by purchasing the certificate of sale issued to another person as purchaser, and subse quently procuring a deed as assignee; Bail ey's Adm'r v. Campbell, 82 Ala. 342, 2 South. 646. A defendant entitled to a homestead in certain lands, sold under execution against him, is not estopped from claiming his home stead, by accepting a lease for the same land from the purchaser at the execution sale; Abbott v. Cromartie, 72 N. C. 293, 21 Am. Rep. 457; but the right to the homestead is no defence to the suit for the land and the tenant must wait until his term expires be fore asserting his claim to the homestead ; id. • The rights of the landlord and tenant are not confined to the immediate parties to the contract, but attach to all persons who may succeed either of them as assignees. In case of sale by the landlord the tenant re tains the rights and his assignee in turn assumes his liabilities and is entitled to the same protection from the assignee of the re: version ; Van Rensselaer v. Hays, 19 N. Y. 68, 75 Am. Dec. 278; Fennell v. Guffey, 155 Pa. 38, 25 Atl. 785. The original lessee is not, by the transfer, discharged from his obligations under express covenants, if any, even if the lessor assent to the assignment ; Shaw v. Partridge, 17 Vt. 626 ; Ranger v. Bacon, 3 Misc. 95, 22 N. Y. Supp. 551; Dew ey v. Dupuy, 2 W. & S. (Pa.) 553; Charless v. Froebel, 47 Mo. App. 45 ; Auriol v. Wills, 4 Term 94. In case of implied covenants he is discharged if the landlord specially accept the assignee as his tenant ; Kimpton v. Walk er, 9 Vt. 191; 3 Rep. 22 ; Spencer's Case, 1 Sm. L. Cas. *176; and the liability of the assignee may be at any time terminated by him, by a transfer of the estate assigned, even if the transfer be made to a pauper with express intent to evade liability ; Fagg v. Dosie, 3 Y. & C. 96 ; Armstrong v. Wheel
er, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 88; Kimpton v. Walker, 9 Vt. 191. A tenant who accepts a lease from and attorns to one who succeeds to the ownership of the land, is estopped, in an ac tion to recover possession, from setting up any defence under a lease from a former owner, under which he had entered ; Val lette v. Billinski, 167 Ill. 564, 47 N. E. 770,1 affirming 68 Ill. App. 361. And it has been I held that a tenant is under a legal obligation! to pay rent to one to whom the lease is as signed by the landlord, without any formal ! act of attornment; Kelly v. Bowerman, 113 Mich. 446, 71 N. W. 836. A lessor who ac cepts rent from an assignee of the lease thereby waives a provision of the lease that it shall be void if assigned without the les sor's consent ; Koehler v. Brady, 78 Hun 443, 29 N. Y. Supp. 388.
The relation of landlord and tenant may be terminated in several ways. If it is a tenancy for Yife, it will of course terminate upon the decease of him upon whose life the lease depends; McIntyre v. Clark, 6 Misc. 377, 26 N. Y. Supp. 744; but if it be for life, or for a certain number of years, and depend upon some particular event, the hap pening of that event will determine the ten ancy. So if it be for a certain number of years, independent of any contingency, it will expire at the last moment of the last day of the tenancy. See Finkelstein v. Her son, 55 N. J. L. 217, 26 Atl. 688; Buchanan v. Whitman, 76 Hun 67, 27 N. Y. Supp. 604. And in all these cases depending upon the express conditions of the lease, no notice to quit win be, necessary in order to dissolve the relation of the parties ,to each other ; Co. Litt. 216 ; 9 Ad. & E. 879; Jackson v. Parkhurst, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 128; Ellis v. Paige, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 43; Bedford v. Mc Elherron, 2 S. & R. (Pa.) 49 ; Clapp v. Paine, 18 Me. 264; Den v. Adams, 12 N. J. L. 99. A tenant after the expiration of his term becomes a trespasser, though his holding is in good faith under a color and reasonable claim of right ; and the landlord without legal process may forcibly enter, therefore, and eject him; Freeman v. Wilson, 16 R. I. 524, 17 Atl. 921; and by holding over after the expiration of the term, a tenant for years does not become a tenant for another year, unless the landlord so elects; Condon v. Brockway, 157 Ill. 90, 41 N. E. 634; if he holds over after a notice of increase of rent, the effect is to make him a tenant for an other year upon the terms of the old lease with the single exception of the increased rent ; Rand v. Purcell, 58 Ill. App. 228; and a tenant for one year, with the privilege of three, is bound for the latter, if he elected to hold over ; Curtis v. Sturges, 2 Mo. App. Rep. 1047.