Such surrender takes place when the lessee does something incompatible with the lease, and the lessor assents or co-operdistillery refused to give the lessee a United States certificate, Grabenhorst v. Nico-demus, 42 Md. 236; or the lessor's adjoining cellar was a nuisance, Alger v. Kennedy, 49 Vt. 109. See Scott v. Simons, 54 N. H. 426. - K.

(g) Gilhooley v. Washington, 4 Comst. 217.'

(h) Smith v. Raleigh, 3 Camp. 513; Briggs v. Hall, 4 Leigh, 484.

(hk) Schilling v. Holmes, 23 Cal. 227.

(hi) Gray v. Bompas, 11 C. B. (n. s.) 520.

(hj) Mugford v. Richardson, 6 Allen, 76. See Stearns v. Sampson, 59 Me. 568.

(hk) Bedford v. Terhuue, 3 N. Y. 453; Kneeland v. Schmidt, 78 Wis. 345.

1 Rent is merely suspended until restoration of that part. Colburn v. Morrill, 117 Mass. 262; Hayner v. Smith, 63 Ill. 430; Skaggs v. Emerson, 50 Cal. 3. If the lessor uses unreserved privileges he cannot collect rent therefor. Townsend v. Nickerson, etc. Co. 117 Mass. 501. - K.

2 Where a statutory notice of intention to quit is required, and the landlord refuses to accept possession after the tenant's abandonment, the tenant continues to be liable for rent until such notice is given. Rollins v. Moody, 72 Me. 135. - K.

ates. 1 - as if the lessor gives and the lessee accepts a new valid lease. (i) There is, perhaps, no better definition of the acts which make a surrender in law than to say, that they are such acts as in contemplation of law are acts of notoriety; as formal and solemn as the execution of a deed, or livery, entry, and acceptance of an estate. (j) The surrender may be by substituting a new lease between the same parties, as we have seen, or a new lessee instead of the old one. (A;) But the mere agreement for substitution is not enough; there must be an actual change of possession, and an actual reception by the lessor of the new tenant in the stead of the old one; (l) otherwise the new tenant is but the assignee or sub-lessee of the old one. Or it may be a surrender and abandonment of the premises to the landlord, he accepting the same, and no new contract substituted. (m) An acceptance of rent, by the lessor from a third * party, is prima facie only an acceptance of rent paid by the lessee through an agent; (n) but if this presumption be rebutted by facts going to show that the landlord had given up the lessee, and had nothing more to do with him, and treated the new occupant as his lessee, this will amount to a surrender. For the landlord cannot hold both as his lessees. (o)

(0 Lyon v. Reed, 13 M. & W. 285; Doe v. Pole, 11 Q. B. 713.

(j) Parke, B., Lyon v. Reed, 13 M. & W. 309; Co. Lit. 352 a. See also Crowley v. Vitty, 9 E. L. & E. 501; s. c. 7 Exch. 319.

(k) Stone v. Whiting, 2 Stark. 235; Thomas v. Cook, 2 Stark. 508; s. c. 2 B. & Ald. 119; Lyon v. Reed, 13 M. & W. 285; Doe v. Wood, 14 M. & W. 682; Kick-ells v. Atherstone, 10 Q B 944; Whitney v. Meyers, 1 Duer, 266.

(l) Graham v. Whichelow, 1 Cr. & M. 188; Taylor v. Chapman, Peake, Ad. Cas. 19. See also McDonnell v. Pope, 13 E. L. & E. 11; Barlow v. Wainwright, 22 Vt. 88

(m) Reeve v. Bird, 1 C. M. & R. 31.

In Grimman v. Legge, 8 B. & C. 324, A. demised to B. the first and second floor of a house for a year, at a rent payable quarterly. During a current quarter, some dispute arising between the parties, B. told A that she would quit immediately. The latter answered, she might go when she pleased. B. quitted. and A. accepted possession of the apartments: Held, that A. could neither recover the rent, which, by virtue of the original contract, would have become due at the expiration of the current quarter; nor rent pro rata for the actual occupation of the premises for any period short of the quarter. See also Dodd v Acklom, 6 Man. & G. 672.

(n) Copeland v. Watts, 1 Stark. 95.

1 A written lease may be surrendered by abandonment with the landlord's assent and reletting, Stobie v. Dills, 62 Ill. 432; so by an underletting and acceptance of the sub-tenant by the landlord, and the collecting of rent from the latter, Amory v. Kannoffsky, 117 Mass. 357; so the receiving the key of the premises and the putting another tenant in, Hanham v Sherman, 114 Mass. 19; so where the tenant surrenders, and a sub-tenant, who had offered to surrender, quits the premises, Pratt v. Richards, etc. Co. 69 Pa. St. 53. The delivery of the keys to, and negotiations by the lessor with, a third party are evidence of surrender, Hill v. Robinson, 23 Mich. 244; but if the tenant abandons and hands the key to the landlord, who puts up a notice "to let" and makes repairs, it is no surrender, Oastler v. Henderson, 2 Q. B. D. 575; Pier v. Carr, 69 Pa. St. 326. And see Milling v. Becker, 96 Pa 182; Auer v Auer, 99 Pa. 370. As to the liability of retiring partner, see Beall v. White, 94 U. S. 382. In Kinsey v. Minnick, 43 Md. 112, held, that after a change of partners, surrender at the term end is presumed. See Mellor v. Watkins, L. R. 9 Q. B. 400, as to surrender affecting third persons. A surety for rent is not discharged by a surrender. Kingsbury v. Westfall, 61 N. Y 356. - K.