In addition to the several methods of put ting an end to a tenancy already mentioned, we may add that it is, of course, competent for a tenant at any time to surrender his lease to the landlord; Livingston v. Potts, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 28; Jungerman v. Bovee, 19 Cal. 354; but a mere agreement to surrender a lease is inoperative unless accompanied by the act ; National Union Bldg. Ass'n. v. Brewer, 41 Ill. App. 223. An express sur render can only be made by deed in England, since the Statute of Frauds, and this provi sion is in some of the states re-enacted; 8 Taunt. 270; Rowan v. Lytle, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 616; Farson v. Goodale, 8 Allen (Mass.) 202 ; Bailey v. Wells, 8 Wis. 141, 76 Am. Dec. 233. But a surrender by operation of law is a case excepted out of the statute ; as, for example, where, during the period of the old lease, a new one, inconsistent with it in its terms, is accepted, the old lease is at an end; Jackson v. Gardner, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 394; Bowen v. Haskell, 53 Minn. 480, 55 N. W. 629; Tayl. L. & T. 512. if the sub ject-matter of the lease wholly perishes; Graves v. Berdan, 26 N. Y. 498; Shawmut Nat. Bank v. City of Boston, 118 Mass. 125; Russell v. Mallon, 38 Cal. 259 ; or is required to be taken for public uses ; Barclay v. Pick er, 38 Mo. 143; Schuylkill & D. Imp. & R. Co. v. Schmoele, 57 Pa. 271; O'Brien v. Ball, 119 Mass. 28 ; or the tenant disclaims to hold under his landlord, and therefore re fuses to pay his rent, asserts the title to be in himself or unlawfully attorns to another, the tenancy is at an end, and the landlord may forthwith resume the possession ; Wil lison v. Watkins, 3 Pet. (U. S.) 43, 7 L. Ed. 596; Jackson v. Vincent, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 633; Van Winkle v. Hinckle, 21 Cal. 342 ; Newman v. Rutter, 8 Watts (Pa.) 55; Leon ard v. Henderson, 23 Gratt. (Va.) 332.
Where there is no covenant against sub letting, the lessee cannot by a surrender to the lessor affect the rights of the under tenant ; Mitchell v. Young, 80 Ark. 441, 97 S. W. 454, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 221, note, 117 Am. St. Rep. 89, 10 Ann. Cas. 423 ; Eten v. Luyster, 60 N. Y. 252; Hessel v. Johnson, 129 Pa. 173, 18 Atl. 754, 5 L. R. A. 851, 15 Am. St. Rep. 716 ; and this is true of a ten ant from year to year ; Brown v. Butler, 4 Phila. (Pa.) 71; and a surrender will not affect the rights of the purchaser of a build ing on the leased land which the tenant had the right to remove ; Adams v. Goddard, 48 Me. 212; or a mortgage ; Allen v. Brown, 5 Lans. (N. Y.) 280; or a mechanic's lien ; Gaskill v. Trainer, 3 Cal. 334 ; or the right to remove fixtures ; Morrison v. Sohn, 90 Mo. App. 76; on the leased premises. The lessor commits trespass if he enters upon the subtenant after a surrender ; Krider v. Ramsay, 79 N. C. 354 ; Brown v. Butler, supra, where it was also held that the right of the subtenant, was not affected by a cove nant against subletting in the original lease; but see Trauerman v. Lippincott, 39 Mo. App. 478.
Where the tenant, by consent of his land lord, continues in possession after the expira tion of his term, in the absence of a new agreement, the law will imply a tacit re newal of the former one ; Schilling v. Klein,
41 Ill. App. 209 ; Cavanaugh v. Clinch, 88 Ga. 610, 15 S. E. 673. [1893] 1 Q. B. 736.
After the tenancy has ended, the right of possession reverts to the landlord, who may re-enter upon the premises if he can do so without violence. But if the tenant holds over and the landlord takes possession forcibly, so as to endanger a breach of the peace, he runs the risk of being punished criminally for a forcible entry (see Fonci BLE ENTRY AND DETAINER) as well as of suffering the consequences of an action of trespass ; Low v. Elwell, 121 Mass. 309, 23 Am. Rep. 272 ; Stearns v. Sampson, 59 Me. 568, 8' Am. Rep. 442; 4 Am. Law Rev. 429 ; 1 M. & G. 644; Overdeer v. Lewis, 1 W. & S. (Pa.) 90, 37 Am. Dec. 440. The landlord should, therefore, in all such cases, call in the law to his assistance, and receive posses sion at the hands, of the sheriff.
The tenant, on his part, is bound quietly to yield up the possession of the entire prem ises; Poppers v. Meagher, 148 III. 192, 35 N. E. 805. And for refusal to perform this duty he will be liable for rent ; Schuyler v. Smith, 51 N. Y. 309, 10 Am. Rep. 609; Clapp v. Noble, 84 Ill. 62 ; Bonney v. Foss, 62 Me. 248 ; E., B. & E. 326.
If the tenant, after surrendering posses sion, resumed it under any agreement with his landlord or his agent, though made by the latter without authority, he is not liable for holding over ; Frost v. Iron Co., 1 App. Div. 449, 37 N. Y. Supp. 374; and where a tenant vacated a building and delivered up the key, leaving a press on the premises, which was used by his employes, who had entered the building some days after without his knowledge, be did not hold over ; Excel sior Steam Power Co. v. Halsted, 5 App. Div. 124, 39 N. Y. Supp. 43. Where the lessee holds over, he may be treated by the land lord at his option as a tenant or a trespass er; Kaier v. Leahy, 15 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 243 ; Frost v. Iron Co., 12 Misc. 348, 33 N. Y. Supp. 654. The tenant cannot avoid his responsi bility for the rent of another term by no tice that he is going to quit, and then not doing it ; Graham v. Dempsey, 169 Pa. 460, 32 Atl. 408. Where the agent of the lessor failed to make an answer to the tenant's proposition to hold over as tenant by the month, he was not thereby relieved from the consequences of holding over ; Smith v. Sny der, 168 Pa. 541, 32 AU. 64. The burden is on the tenant to relieve himself from an ac tion for unlawful detainer by showing the agreement for the renewal of the tenancy; Jefferson v. Ummelmann, 56 Mo. App. 440.
But where a tenant for years had plant ed a crop, after a decree foreclosing a mort gage on the leased land under which the land was sold before the crop matured, and the purchaser having notified the tenant that he would expect rent in money or in kind, the latter was held entitled to the crop; Monday v. O'Neil, 44 Neb. 724, 63 N. W. 32, 48 Am. St. Rep. 760. Upon the abandonment of a farm by a tenant before the end of the term, the possessory right iu whatever prop erty is on the farm, including harvesteti crops, reverts to the lessor; Maciary v. Tur ner, 9 Houst. (Del.) 281, 32 Atl. 325.