creatable by parol, but only by feoffment or other deed. 8 East, 167. What was formerly considered as a tenancy at will has, in modern times, been construed to be a tenancy from year to year; and from a general occupation such a tenancy will be inferred, unless a contrary intent appear. 3 Burr. 1609; 1 T. R. 163; 3 T. R. 16; 8 T. R. 3. And so, in the cases in which the statute against frauds (29 Car. II. c. 3) declares that the letting shall only have the effect of an estate at will, it operates as a tenancy from year to year. 8 T. R. 3; 5 T. R. 471. So, where rent is received by a landlord, that raises an implied tenancy from year to year, though the tenant was originally let in under an invalid lease. 3 East, 451. So, if a tenant hold over by consent after the expiration of a lease, he becomes tenant from year to year (5 Esp. R. 173), even where the lease was determined by the death of the lessor tenant for life in the middle of a year. 1 H. B. 97.

But if the circumstances of the case clearly preclude the construction in favor of such a tenancy, it will not exist; as where a party let a shed to another for so long as both parties should like, on an agreement that the tenant should convert it into a stable, and the defendant should have all the dung for a compensation, there being no reservation referable to any aliquot part of a year, this was construed to be an estate at will. 4 Taunt. 128. And it must by no means be understood that a strict tenancy at will cannot exist at the present day; for it may clearly be created by the express will of the parties. Id. ibid. 5 B. & A. 604. I Dowl. & R. 272. So, under an agreement that the tenant shall always be subject to quit at three months' notice, he is not tenant from year to year, but from quarter to quarter. 3 Camp. 510.-Chitty's note.

DIGBY, HIST. REAL PROP., Ch. V., § 1. The inconveniences of tenancies at will induced the tribunals to provide some means of giving greater security to a tenant who held under no regular lease for years. The circumstances of the

letting especially the character of the rent, whether payable yearly, half-yearly, quarterly, or otherwise-are looked to, in order to ascertain the nature of the interest which the parties intended to create. Most commonly the reservation of an annual rent and payment of any part of it is held to constitute what is called a tenancy from year to year. Such a tenancy can usually be put an end to only at the end of the current year of the tenancy, by either party giving at least half a year's previous notice to quit.1 Other modifications of tenancies at will, such as quarterly, monthly, or weekly tenancies, can be created, depending in each case upon evidence as to the terms of the letting.

N. Y. REAL PROP. LAW, § 198. A tenancy at will or by sufferance, however created, may be terminated by a written notice of not less than thirty days given in behalf of the landlord, to the tenant, requiring him to remove from the premises. At the expiration of thirty days after the service of such notice, the landlord may re-enter, maintain ejectment, or proceed, in the manner prescribed by law, to remove the tenant, without further or other notice to quit.

"This kind of lease was in use as long ago as the reign of Henry VIII." Blackstone, II. p. 147, note, citing Year Book, T. 13 Hen. VIII., 15, 16.

CHAPTER III.

TENANCY AT SUFFERANCE.

Co. LIT., 57, b. There is a great diversity between a tenant at will and a tenant at sufferance; for tenant at will is alwaies by right, and tenant at sufferance entreth by a lawfull lease, and holdeth over by wrong. A tenant at sufferance is he that at the first came in by lawfull demise, and after his estate ended continueth in possession and wrongfully holdeth over. As tenant pur terme d'auter vie continueth in possession after the decease of Ce' que vie, or tenant for yeares holdeth over his terme; the lessor cannot have an action of trespasse before entry.

ID., 270, b. By these two sections [Lit., §§ 459, 460] is to be observed, a diversity between a tenant at will, and a tenant at sufferance; for a release to a tenant at will is good, because betweene them there is a possession with a privity; but a release to a tenant at sufferance is void, because he hath a possession without privity. As if lessee for yeares hold over his terme, &c., a release to him is void, for that there is no privity betweene them; and so are the books that speake of this matter to be understood.

2 BL. COм., 150. An estate at sufferance is where one comes into possession of land by lawful title, but keeps it afterwards without any title at all. As if a man takes a lease for a year, and after a year is expired continues to hold the premises without any fresh leave from the owner of the estate. Or, if a man maketh a lease at will and dies, the estate at will is thereby determined: but if the tenant con

tinueth possession, he is tenant at sufferance. But no man can be tenant at sufferance against the king, to whom no laches, or neglect in not entering and ousting the tenant is ever imputed by law; but his tenant, so holding over, is considered as an absolute intruder. But, in the case of a subject, this estate may be destroyed whenever the true owner shall make an actual entry on the lands and oust the tenant: for, before entry, he cannot maintain an action of trespass against the tenant by sufferance, as he might against a stranger and the reason is, because the tenant being once in by a lawful title, the law (which presumes no wrong in any man) will suppose him to continue upon a title equally lawful; unless the owner of the land by some public and avowed act, such as entry is, will declare his continuance to be tortious, or, in common language, wrongful.

Thus stands the law, with regard to tenants by sufferance, and landlords are obliged in these cases to make formal entries upon their lands, and recover possession by the legal process of ejectment; and at the utmost, by the common law, the tenant was bound to account for the profits of the land so by him detained. But now, by statute 4 Geo. II. c. 28, in case any tenant for life or years, or other person claiming under or by collusion with such tenant, shall wilfully hold over after the determination of the term, and demand made and notice in writing given, by him to whom the remainder or reversion of the premises shall belong, for delivering the possession thereof; such person, so holding over or keeping the other out of possession, shall pay for the time he detains the lands, at the rate of double their yearly value. And, by statute 11 Geo. II. c. 19, in case any tenant, having power to determine his lease, shall give notice of his intention to quit the premises, and shall not deliver up the possession at the time contained in such notice, he shall thenceforth pay double the former rent, for such time as he continues in possession. These statutes have almost put an end to the practice of tenancy by sufferance, unless with the tacit consent of the owner of the tenement.

51 N. Y. REP., 539. At common law, a tenant who held over after the expiration of his term became a tenant by sufferance. He had only a naked possession, and no estate which he could transfer or transmit. He stood in no privity to his landlord, was not liable to pay any rent and was not entitled to any notice to quit. He held by the laches of the landlord, who could enter and put an end to the tenancy when he pleased. 4 Kent's Com. 118. This is still the law, except as modified by the statute.1 At common law, when by the terms of the lease the tenancy terminated at a day certain, the landlord could always commence his action of ejectment to recover possession of his land, after the expiration of the lease, without any notice to quit; and this he could do, although the tenant became a tenant by sufferance by holding over the term without his permission. It was only in a tenancy from year to year, the termination of which was uncertain, that the tenant was entitled to notice to quit. The object of the notice was to give him information when the lease would terminate. In the former case such notice was contained in the lease itself, and in such case I cannot discover that it was ever made the subject of complaint that the tenant could be removed without notice. If within the meaning of our statutes (1 R. S. 745, 746) every tenant holding over his term for the briefest period is to be deemed a tenant by sufferance, and thus entitled to one month's notice to quit, then every lease for one year will be, at the will of the tenant, practically extended to a lease for thirteen months, as no proceedings can be instituted for his removal until the expiration of the month's notice. It cannot be conceived that the legislature, in a case where the parties have in the lease fixed a day certain for the termination of the tenancy, intended that the tenant may, by his own wrong, extend his holding for another month; and a construction leading to such a result should not be tolerated if it can be avoided.

The notice is clearly necessary only in case there is such a 12 R. S. 745; Real Prop. Law, § 198 (page 295, supra).—ED.