decided that the rent was not suspended, as the holding at will was not determined by the license to enter, for the license did not amount to a lease for any certain time, but merely gave a right to enter, and thus the licensee continued to occupy during the half year.

A person employed as agent, without disclosing the name of his principal, procured a lease in his own name, and the principal(n) having entered, demised part of the premises to the agent as a weekly tenant, it was determined that the agent could not set up the lease granted to him in his own name for the purpose of defeating a distress for the weekly rent, although there was no declaration of trust in writing the acceptance of a demise by the agent from his employer, being inconsistent with his character of original lessee, was probably considered equivalent to a declaration of trust.

If an instrument can operate as a surrender it must have the appropriate(o) stamp, though the word "surrender" be not used, and even if it might take effect as a renunciation(p) of title as well as a surrender, it cannot be received in evidence for the purpose of shewing such renunciation without being stamped as a surrender.

18. Although a surrender of a lease or other interest for life or for years to the immediate reversioner, as between the parties, is an extinguishment of the estate surrendered, yet such estate will have continuance to support(9) a prior underlease or interest which was well granted to and is subsisting in a third person; however, if a landlord purchase an intermediate lease affecting his estate, it ought not to be surrendered or conveyed directly to him, but should be assigned to a trustee for his benefit, because the effect of a surrender would be to defeat the landlord's claim to the rent reserved by the underlease, by reason of the destruction of the reversion immediately expectant on such underlease, to which the rent thereby reserved was incident. If a person seised in fee make a lease pur auter vie reserving a rent of £20, and such lessee demise for years at a rent of £100 with the usual covenants, and the inheritor purchase the intermediate interest in the premises, and take a surrender or assignment directly to himself, without the intervention of a trustee, his right to the rent of £100 and the remedies on the covenants in the underlease would be lost in consequence of the extinguishment of the reversion expectant on the underlease, to which

(n) Clarke v. Waterton, 2 Moo. & Rob. N. P. C. 87; 8 Carr. & P. 365, S. C.

(0) Williams v. Sawyer, 3 Brod. & B. 70.

(p) Doe dem. Wyatt v. Stagg, 5 Bing.

N. C. 564; 7 Scott, 690.

(q) Doe dem. Beadon v. Pyke, 5 M. & Selw. 146; Davenport's case, 8 Rep. 144, B.; Co. Litt. 338, B.; Shepp. T. 300.

such rent and covenants were annexed. A person having demised lands for one hundred years, the lessee made an underlease for twenty years rendering rent with a clause of re-entry, and the original lessor afterwards conveyed the reversion in fee to a purchaser(r), and such reversioner also purchased the term of one hundred years: upon this state of facts it was ruled, that the purchaser was neither entitled to the rent reserved by the underlease nor to a right to re-enter, because the reversion expectant on the underlease to which the rent and covenants were incident was extinguished in the reversion in fee.

However, if a person seised in fee make a lease for years rendering rent, and then limit his reversion to another for life, and such tenant for life afterwards grant his estate to the reversioner, neither the rent nor covenants in the lease will be defeated, because the reversion out of which the lease was derived still subsists: in like manner, where a tenant for life made a lease for years in pursuance of a leasing power, the interest of the termor being derived out of the inheritance(s), and not out of the particular estate, though such life estate be surrendered to the reversioner or merged in the fee, the same remedies will subsist against the lessee for years as the tenant for life had during the continuance of his estate.

By the Statute(t), 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 90, s. 33, relating to Church temporalities in Ireland, it is enacted, for the prevention of doubts as to the consequences of the purchase of the fee-simple of lands under the provisions of that Act, by any immediate or mesne tenant, that such immediate or mesne tenant, notwithstanding his acquisition of the fee-simple, and the merger of any previously subsisting term or estate therein, shall have all such and the like remedies by distress, re-entry, action, or otherwise for recovery of the rents and duties reserved in any underlease by him theretofore made, which he might or would have had in case he had not acquired such fee-simple, and as would have been incident to his reversion in such previously subsisting term or

estate.

19. If two joint-tenants demise lands for years reserving rent, a surrender(u) made to one of them by the lessee shall enure to both.

(r) The Lord Treasurer v. Barton, Moor, 94; Webb v. Russell, 3 T. R. 393.

(s) Isherwood v. Oldknow, 3 M. & Selw. 382.

(t) 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 90, s. 33, Irish. (u) Co. Litt. 214, A., 192, A., and Hargr. note 62, to Co. Litt. 183, A.; Year Book, 5 Edw. IV. fol. 4, pl. 7; Bro. Surr. pl. 54.

1. If a lease determinable on a contingency (a) expire after the land has been sown, the tenant will be entitled to take away the growing crops when arrived at maturity. This principle applies equally where the tenancy is defeated by the landlord, after the land has been cropped and before harvest-time, either by notice to quit given(b) after the land has been sown, or by demand (c) of possession, or upon the expiration of a lease for life or lives, or for a term of years depending(d) upon a life or lives. In such cases the crops growing at the time of the determination of the demise are called "emblements," and though annexed to the soil are considered personal chattels, and continue to be the tenant's property as a compensation for his labour and the expenses of tillage, and in case of his death before their severance, will pass to his personal representatives.

2. Emblements comprise all sorts (e) of corn and grain, flax, hemp, beans, clover, saffron, vetches, and also potatoes, turnips, beet, carrots,

(a) Knivet's case, 5 Rep. 85, A., Co. Litt. 55, B.; 2 Bla. Comm. 145; Com. Dig. Biens, G.; 9 Vin. Abr. 364, Emblements.

(b) 6 Law Mag. 108; Davies v. Connop, 1 Price, 58.

(c) Litt. s. 68; Geanes v. Portman,

Cro. El. 314; Owen, 102, S. C.

(d) Johns v. Whitley, 3 Wils. 127140; Graves v. Weld, 5 B. & Adol. 105; 2 Nev. & M. 725, S. C.

(e) Evans v. Roberts, 5 B. & Cress. 829-831, by Bayley, J.; 8 D. & Ry. 611.

and other vegetables of artificial growth and annual profit requiring cultivation; so hops, though produced(ƒ) by old roots, being annually manured, are subject to the same rule. A growing crop of grass, although raised (g) from seed, or kept up and ready for mowing, does not come under the description of emblements, because the improvement of the grass, though increased by cultivation, is not distinguishable from the natural produce of the soil: so fruit, growing(h) in an orchard or on detached trees, will, on the expiration of the lease, become the property of the landlord. An outgoing tenant, however, is only entitled to a growing crop of that species which ordinarily repays the labour by which it is produced within the year in which that labour is bestowed, although the crop may in extraordinary seasons be delayed beyond that period. A lease for ninety-nine years determinable upon a life, expired on the 27th of June, 1830, and in the Spring of 1830 the farm was sown with barley, and in May of the same year the tenant sowed broad clover-seed along with the barley: in the Autumn of 1830 the outgoing tenant reaped the barley, and in cutting() the crop took away a small portion of the clover which had sprung up with the barley in the month of May, 1831, the landlord cut the clover, being upwards of twelve months after the sowing of its seed, and it was decided that the late tenant was not entitled to the May crop of clover as emblements. A tenant is not entitled to compensation where his estate determines after the land has been ploughed(j) and manured, but before the seed has been put into the ground.

3. Where a person is in possession of land(k) which he reasonably believes to be his own, and sows the ground, he has a right to reap the crop, although before its severance it should be established that another person had a preferable title to the soil, upon the principle, that "messis sementem sequitur;" but a party who recovers possession of the land by action(1) after it has been cropped, is entitled to the emble

ments.

A lease of lands being made, by order of the Court of Chancery,

(f) Latham v. Attwood, Cro. Car. 515; Flud v. Flud, Freem. Cha. Ca. 210; Fisher v. Forbes, 9 Vin. Abr. 373, Emblements, pl. 82.

(g) Evans v. Roberts, 5 B. & Cr. 832; Co. Litt. 56, A.; 1 Williams' Exec. 495.

(h) 1 Williams' Exec. 491; Rodwell v. Phillips, 9 Mees. & W. 501; 1 Dowl. Pr. Ca. 885, N. S.

(i) Graves v. Weld, 5 B. & Adol.

105; 2 Nev. & M. 725, S. C.

(j) Year Book, 11 Hen. IV. fol. 90, pl. 46, by Skrene, in fine; 1 Bro. Abr. 267, Emblements, pl. 7; note 262 to Co. Litt. 55. A., from Lord Hale's MSS.

(k) Erskine's Instit. S. 2, tit. 1. (1) Year Book, 19 Hen. VI. fol. 46, pl. 95, in fine; 1 Bro. Abr. 267, Emblements, pl. 7 and 11; but see Cunningham v. Uniacke, Armst. M. & Ogle N. P. Ca. 393.

for seven years pending the cause, a purchaser under the decree, before the regular(m) expiration of the term of seven years, was put into possession by injunction, whereby the lease was determined, and it was ruled that the outgoing tenant, having sown his crop after the sale, but before the injunction issued, was entitled, in an action of trespass for taking the corn, to recover the value of the emblements: so a tenant holding by lease for years, or from year to year, under a Court of Equity, pending the cause, is considered upon the termination of the suit as a tenant at will, and an injunction will not be issued to deprive him of possession until it is ascertained(n) whether he had sown any crop which should entitle him to emblements; and any such tenant whose holding is prematurely determined has a right to the benefit of his entire crop in the nature of emblements, and not merely to the customary waygoing crop; and if the successful party or a purchaser under the decree deprive such a tenant of the emblements, the Court, upon a summary application, will relieve the tenant by awarding him adequate compensation.

If tenant for life make a lease for years(o), and afterwards commit a forfeiture, or if a woman holding durante viduitate demise for years, and marry after her lessee has sown the land, the lessee shall have the emblements, because the interest of the tenant is determined by the act of a person over whom the tenant has no control, and the loss of the possession could not have been foreseen.

4. A tenant holding lands for a definite term of years, has no right to emblements(p), or to the crops growing at the expiration of his lease, because he must have been aware that his term would expire before the crops could be ripe.

5. If a holding be determined(q) by the act of the tenant, either by the surrender of his interest, or by giving due notice of his intention to leave the land, or by the marriage of a woman(r) holding durante

(m) Short v. Atkinson, Exch. Easter, 1834, Hayes & Jones, 682.

(n) O'Connell v. O'Callaghan, Longf. & Towns. 157; 3 Irish Eq. Rep. 199; Creed v. Creed, 3 Irish Eq. Rep. 207; and see Johnson v. Reardon, 2 Irish Eq. Rep. 123; Garstin v. Nangle, Hayes & J. 542; Holmes v. Bowden, Hayes & J. 544; Jameson v. Farrer, 3 Irish Eq. Rep. 513.

(0) Oland v. Bardwick, Gouldsb. 189, pl. 136; Year Book, 7 Hen. IV. fo. 17, pl. 15; 1 Bro. Abr. 267, Emblements, pl. 6, 14; 1 Ro. Abr. 727, Emblements,

A. pl. 10; and see the Editor's note to
Oland's case, 5 Rep. 116, B.

(p) William v. Thomas, Year Book, 9 Edw. III. fo. 24, pl. 19; Litt. s. 68; 2 Bla. Comm. 145.

(9) Oland's case, 5 Rep. 116, A.; 1 Ro. Abr. 726, Emblements, A.; Weeper v. Handall, 9 Vin. Abr. 366, Emblements, A., pl. 11; 1 Ro. Abr. 727, pl. 11, Emblements.

(r) Oland's case, 5 Rep. 116; Oland v. Burdwick, Cro. El. 460; Gouldsb. 189, pl. 136, S. C.; Co. Litt. 55, B.; Bulwer v. Bulwer, 2 B. & Ald. 470.