§ 1264. The relation of landlord and tenant may be dissolved by the breach of some condition, express or implied, and the reversioner's entry thereupon. But a fraudulent misrepresentation by a lessee as to a matter collateral to the lease - as that he was a respectable man, and intended to use the premises for a respectable business, when in fact he was not a respectable man, and intended to use and did use the premises for an immoral and illegal purpose - has been held not to avoid the lease and work a forfeiture thereof.1 If the tenant acknowledge or affirm by matter of record that the fee is in a stranger, or if he claims an estate of a higher nature than that to which he is entitled, or make a feoffment of the estate, and surrender the possession, he forfeits his lease.2 But mere words or oral denial of the landlord's title does not work a forfeiture; nor does mere default in the payment of rent, if there be no clause so providing.3 These forfeitures are, however, much reduced in this country by the disuse or abolition of fines and feoffments, and by the statute provision that no conveyance by a tenant for life or years of a greater estate than he could lawfully convey should work a forfeiture, or be construed to pass a greater interest than that possessed.4

1 Blyth v. Dennet, 13 C. B. 178; 16 Eng. Law & Eq. 424. See Nor-ris v. Morrill, 43 N. H. 213.

2 Doe v. Palmer, 16 East, 53; Dorrell v. Johnson, 17 Pick. 263.

3 Doe v. Humphreys, 2 East, 237. 4 Ibid.

5 Doe v. Steel, 3 Camp. 117; Messenger v. Armstrong, 1 T. R. 53.

6 In Turner v. Meymott, 1 Bing. 158, it was held that where notice had been regularly given, and the tenant refused to quit, the landlord might, in the tenant's absence, break open the door with a crowbar and resume possession, although articles of the tenant's furniture remained in the house. But the court also admitted that the landlord thereby subjected himself to an indictment, although he did not render himself answerable in an action.