The destruction of the premises-for instance, where a room is leased, and the whole house is burned-puts an end to the tenancy, because the subject-matter of the lease has ceased to exist.163 This is not true, of course, in the absence of an agreement, where the part destroyed is not the whole subject of the lease, as where a house and lot are leased, and the house is destroyed.164

Taking under Power of Eminent Domain.

If the demised premises are taken under the power of eminent domain, the relation of landlord and tenant comes to an end.165 But, if only a part is taken, both lessor and lessee can claim compensation for the taking, and the tenancy continues.166

25 Atl. 564; Williams v. Vanderbilt, 145 111. 238, 34 N. E. 476; Smith v. Pender-gast, 26 Minn, 318, 3 N. W. 978; Nelson v. Thompson, 23 Minn. 508. See Burnham v. O'grady, 90 Wis. 461, 63 N. W. 1049; Hooks v. Forst, 165 Pa. St. 238, 30 Atl. 846; Aderhold v. Supply Co., 158 Pa. St. 401, 28 Atl. 22; Hough v. Brown (Mich.) 62 N. W. 143; National Union Bldg. Ass'n v. Brewer, 41 111. App. 223. The surrender must be accepted. Pendill v. Mining Co. (Mich.) 62 N. W. 1024; Joslin v. Mclean, 99 Mich. 480, 58 N. W. 467; Stevens v. Pantlind. 95 Mich. 145, 54 N. W. 716; Lane v. Nelson, 167 Pa. St. 602, 31 Atl. 864; Reeves y. Mccomeskey, 168 Pa. St. 571, 32 Atl. 96; Rees v. Lowy, 57 Minn. 381, 59 N. W. 310; Stern v. Thayer, 56 Minn. 93, 57 N. W. 329.

161 Wood, Landl. & Ten. (24 Ed.) 1152; 2 Tayl. Landl. & Ten. (8th Ed.) 95.

162 Walker v. Githens, 156 Pa. St. 178, 27 Atl. 36; Evans v. Mckanna, 89 Iowa, 362, 56 N. W. 527. But see Witmark v. Railroad Co., 76 Hun, 302, 27 N. Y. Supp. 777. Cf. Beal v. Car-spring Co., 125 Mass. 157.

163 Hecht v. Herrwagen, 13 Misc. Rep. 316, 34 N. Y. Supp. 456; Graves \. Berdan, 26 N. Y. 498; Ainsworth v. Ritt, 38 Cal. 89; Buschman v. Wilson, 29 Md. 553. This is regulated by statute in some states. 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 2062. And see Craig v. Butler, S3 Hun, 286, 31 N. Y. Supp. 963; Fleischman v. Toplitz, 134 N. Y. 349, 31 N. E. 1089.

164 Phillips v. Stevens, 16 Mass. 238; Davis' Adm'r v. Smith, 15 Mo. 407; Ross v. Overton, 3 Call (Va.) 309. But see New York Real-estate & Bldg. Imp. Co. v. Motley, 143 N. Y. 156, 38 N. E. 103; Hunnewell v. Bangs, 161 Mass. 132, 36 N. E. 751; Meyer v. Henderson (La.) 16 South. 729.

165 Barclay v. Picker, 38 Mo. 143.

166 Parks v. City of Boston, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 198; Workman v. Mifflin, 30 Pa. St. 362; City of Chicago v. Garrity, 7 111. App. 474; Foote v. City of Cinletting Land On Shares.

85. A letting of land on shares may make the cultivator:

(a) A servant.

(b) A co-tenant.

(c) A lessee.

Land is often cultivated under an agreement by which both the owner and the cultivator are to share in the crop.167 Such an agreement may establish the relation of employer and employe" between the parties, a share of the crops being given in lieu of wages,168 or they may be tenants in common of the crop,169 or the transaction may constitute a leasing with a rent payable in crops, and the usual incidents of the relation of landlord and tenant exist.170 Probably no rule can be laid down for determining the recinnati, 11 Ohio, 408. And see Corrigan v. City of Chicago, 144 111. 537, 33 N. E. 746.

167 Such holdings are now regulated by statute In some states. See 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 2037. The cropper, or one farming on shares, cannot assign his interest. Mcneeley v. Hart, 10 Ired. (N. C.) 63.

168 Tanner v. Hills, 48 N. Y. 662; Steel v. Frick, 56 Pa. St. 172; Chase v. Mcdonnell, 24 111. 236; Gray v. Robinson (Ariz.) 33 Pac. 712; Haywood v. Rogers, 73 N. C. 320; Xeal v. Bellamy, Id. 384. But see Harrison v. Ricks, 71 N. C. 7; State v. Jones, 2 Dev. & B. (N. C.) 544. Possession and property in the crop remain in the owner of the land. Adams v. Mckesson's Ex'x, 53 Pa. St. 81; Appling v. Odom, 46 Ga. 583.

169 Walker v. Fitts, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 191; Creel v. Kirkham, 47 111. 344; De Mott v. Hagerman, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 220; Dinehart v. Wilson, 15 Barb. (N. Y.) 595; Wilber v. Sisson, 53 Barb. (X. Y.) 258; Edgar v. Jewell, 34 N. J. Law, 259. And see Wood v. Noack, 84 Wis. 398, 54 N. W. 7S5; Caswell v. Districh, l5 Wend. (N. Y.) 379; Jones v. Durrer, 96 Cal. 95, 30 Pac. 1027; Lowe v. Miller, 3 Grat. (Va.) 205; Moser v. Lower, 48 Mo. App. 85. The usual incidents of a tenancy in common attach to such holdings. Mclaughlin v. Sal-ley, 46 Mich. 219, 9 N. W. 256; Otis v. Thompson, 1 Hill & D. (N. Y.) 131; Daniels v. Brown, 34 N. H. 454; Ferrall v. Kent, 4 Gill (Md.) 209; Hurd v. Darling, 14 Vt. 214. For tenancy in common, see post, p. 335.

170 Walworth v. Jenness, 58 Vt. 670, 5 Atl. 887; Yates v. Kinney, 19 Neb. 275, 27 N. W. 132; Alwood v. Ruckman, 21 111. 200; Dixon v. Niccolls, 39 111. 372; Jackson v. Brownell, 1 Johns. (N. Y.) 267; Johnson v. Hoffman, 53 Mo. 504. Cf. Barry v. Smith, 69 Hun, 88, 23 N. Y. Supp. 261; Rich v. Hobson, 112 N. C. 79, 16 S. E. 931. The right of the landlord to the crop attaches only suit of such an agreement which will hold good in all cases. The intention of the parties is in every instance to be given full effect.171 But if the owner is to receive a definite amount of grain or other produce, not confined to crops grown on the premises, he receives it as lessor.172