A tenant who rents his half of the prem ises to his co-tenant is his landlord and en titled to such rights as pertain to the rela tion ; Grabfelder v. Gazetti (Tex.) 26 S. W. 436.
A tenant of a life estate may dispose of the whole or any part of it by deed or parol lease ; if he conveys it all, it is an assign ment; if he grants a term for years, it is a lease; King v. Sharp, 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 55; McCampbell v. McCampbell, 5 Litt. (Ky.) 92, 15 Am. Dec. 48; but he may contract for his life, reserving an annual rent, without parting with his estate by merely creating a tenancy ; Sykes v. Benton, 90 Ga. 402, 17 S. E. 1002. At common law upon the death of the life tenant his lease for a term ends ; Hoagland v. Crum, 113 Ill. 365, 55 Am. Rep. 424 ; unless he had power so to lease, and the term is not revived by the acceptance of rent by the remaiuderman ; Doe, dem. Simp son v. Butcher, 1 Doug. 50; but the receipt of rent, coupled with acts amounting to a recognition of a tenancy, may amount to a new demise by the remainderman; Lowrey v. Reef, 1 Ind. App. 244, 27 N. E. 626. Rents are not apportionable between the adminis trator of the tenant for life and the re mainderman, but the payment of rent is due to either, according to the time at which it accrued ; Noble v. Tyler, 61 Ohio St. 432, 56 N. E. 191, 48 L. R. A. 735.
The relation of landlord and tenant has been held to exist, where a ranch was let, by a written covenant for a term of years, for a share of the produce, with provision for the sale of stock and produce, and division of profits; Jones v. Durrer, 96 Cal. 95, 30 Pac. 1027 ; also under an agreement between the owner of stone quarry and another per son that the latter shall work the quarry, sell the stone, and pay one-fifth of the proceeds to the former ; Barry v. Smith, 1 Misc. 240, 23 N. Y. Supp. 129 ; where one had pur chased land under a power of sale in a mort gage, which provided that the completion of the sale shall entitle the purchaser to imme diate possession of the premises,. and any holding of the same thereafter should be as tenant ; Brewster v. McNab, 36 S. C. 274, 15 S. E. 233. The relation of landlord and ten ant exists, so as to authorize a forcible de tainer against a tenant in possession, whose lease was not enforceable because the prem ises were leased knowingly for immoral pur poses; Murat v. Micand (Tex.) 25 S. W. 312.
So where mortgagees of a stock of goods In a leased store building took possession of the goods therein, by permission of the mort gagors, and used the building to display and sell the goods ; Hatch v. Van Dervoort, 54 N. J. Eq. 511, 34 Atl. 938.
The relation does not exist where a father deeds lands in fee-simple to his son, who is to give the father one-third of his crops until the latter should be in better financial condition, the son meanwhile to go ahead and improve the land as his own; Starkey v. Starkey, 136 Ind. 349, 36 N. 287 ; or where the owner of a farm rented a house for one year for the use of his tenant who farmed on shares, and at the end of his term held over for a few weeks and then rented the farm under a new lease from the grantee, the latter was held not liable for the rent Of the tenaut-house for the new year; Wil son v. Marshall, 34 Ill. App. 306. Occupa tion of lands by a person without recognizing the owner as his landlord, or any agreement to hold under and in subordination to him, is merely a trespass and does not create the relation of landlord and tenant ; Dixon v. Ahern, 21 Nev. 65, 24 Pac. 337. One in pos session and use of premises under an agree ment to keep *off trespassers is practically a tenant ; Shaw v. Hill, 79 Mick 86, 44 N. W. 422. Where the crop growing on leased premises was sold under execution, the pur chaser, who was also assignee of the judg ment for rent under which the crop was sold, did not become a tenant of the lessor and could go upon the land to harvest the crop without incurring any liability to the lessor for the use of the land while the crop was ripening ; McClellan v. Krall, 43 Kan. 216, 23 Pac. 100. The lessee of a mere occupant (the title being in a third person) could re cover possession under proceedings for forci ble entry and detainer against the lessor who had entered upon the premises ; Thomas v. Black, 8 Houst. (Del.) 507, 18 Atl. 771.