If the tenant surrenders his unexpired leasehold estate to the landlord, he thereby loses, it has been decided, the right to remove the fixtures.62 And a surrender by operation of law63 is as effective for this purpose, it seems, as an express surrender.64

907; Miller v. Johnson, 43 Utah 468, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 294. 134 Pac. 1017. And see Earle v. Kelly, 21 Cal. App. 480, 132 Pac. 262.

58. Cromie v. Hoover, 40 Ind. 49; Sullivan v. Carberry, 67 Me. 531; Northern Cent. R. Co. v. Canton Co., 30 Md. 347; Doty v. Gorham, 22 Mass (5 Pick.) 487, 16 Am. Dec. 417; Watriss v. First Nat. Bank of Cambridge, 124 Mass. 571, 26 Am. Rep. 694; Hay-ward v. School Dist. No. 9, 139

Mich. 539, 102 N. W. 999; Walsh v. Sichler, 20 Mo. App. 374; Om-bony v. Jones, 19 N. Y. 234; Loughran v. Ross, 45 N. Y. 792, 6 Am. Rep. 173.

59. State v. Ellio., 11 N. H. 540.

60. Erickson v. Jones, 37 Minn. 459, 35 N. W. 267.

61. White v. Arndt, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 91; Haflick v. Stober, 11

Ohio St. 482; Jones v. Shufflin. 45 W. Va. 729, 72 Am. St. Rep. 848, 31 S. E. 975.

62. London & Westminister Loan & Discount Co. v. Drake. 6 C. B. (N. S.) 798; Sampson v. Camperdown Cotton Mills, 64 Fed. 939; Thropp's Appeal, 70 Pa. 395; Talbot v Whipple, 96 Mass. (14 Allen) 177; Friec'.Ianaer v. Ryder, 30 Neb. 783. 9 L. R. A. 700, 47 N. W. 83. In Donahue v. Hardman Estate, 91 Wash. 125, 157 Pac. 478, it was held that a purchaser of the fixtures from the tenant could not remove them after surrender by the tenant. This does not harmonize with the general rule that a surrender does not affect third persons. See post Sec. 431.

63. Post Sec. 431.

64. Jungerman v. Bovee, 19

By the weight of authority, a tenant loses his right to remove fixtures if by any act or omission he has forfeited his interest under the lease,65 provided there has been an enforcement by the landlord of the forfeiture,66 whether by re-entry,67 a recovery in ejectment,68 a summary proceeding,69 or otherwise. There are, however, a few decisions to the effect that the tenant has a reasonable time after the loss of possession by forfeiture in which to remove the fixtures.70

There are a considerable number of decisions that, by the acceptance from the landlord of a new lease, containing no mention of fixtures annexed during the tenancy under the former lease, the tenant loses his right to remove such fixtures, the theory being that, the fixtures being a part of the land, the tenant, by an acceptance of the new lease, takes such an interest in the fixtures only as he does in the land, that is, a merely temporary interest.71 Occasionally a decision to this over by permission does not lose his rights of removal, since such permission is in effect a new lease, though only for a brief or indefinite space of time76

Cal. 354; Talbot v. Whipple, 96 Mass. (14 Allen) 177; Zeigler v. Lexington Compress & Oil Mill Co., 105 Miss. 820, 63 So. 220. But see Baker v. McClurg, 198 111. 28, 59 L. R. A. 131, 92 Am. St. Rep. 261, 64 X. E. 701.

65. Pugh v. Arton, L. R. 8 3q. 626, 38 Law J. Ch. 619; Weeton v. Woodcock, 7 Mees. & W. 14; Kutter v. Smith, 69 U. S. (2 Wall.) 491, 17 L. Ed. 830 (semble); Mo-rey v. Hoyt, 62 Conn. 542, 19 L. R. A. 611; 26 Atl. 127; Davis v. Moss, 38 Pa. 346; Whipley . Dewey, 8 Cal. 36; Massachusetts Nat. Bank v. Shinn, 18 App. Div. 276, 46 N. Y. Supp. 329; West Shore R. Co. v. Wenner (N. J. Err. & App.) 68 Atl. 225.

66. Bush v. Havird, 12 Idaho, 352, 86 Pac. 529; Paina v. Coffin, 2 Cleve. L. Rep. (Ohio) 1, 4 Ohio

Dec. 351; Keogh v. Daniell, 12 Wis. 163.

67. Weeton v. Woodcock, 7 Mees. & W. 14; Keogh v. Daniell, 12 Wis. 163; Little Falls Water Power Co. v. Hausdorf, 127 Fed. 444

68. Minshall v. Lloyd, 2 Mees. & W. 450.

69. Morey v. Hoyt, 62 Conn. 542, 19 L. R. A. 611, 26 Atl. 127; Friedlander v. Ryder, 30 Neb 783, 9 L. R. A. 700, 47 N. W. 83.

70. Royce v. Latshaw, 15 Colo. App. 420, 62 Pac. 627; Updegraff v. Lesem, 15 Colo. App. 297, 62 Pac. 342; Gartland v. Hickman, 56 W. Va. 75, 67 L. R. A. b94, 49 S. E. 14. See Moore v. Wood, 12 Abb Pr. (N. Y.) 393; Miller v. Hennes-sy, 47 Misc. (N. Y.) 403, 94 N. Y. Supp. 563.

71. Marks v. Ryan, 63 Cal. 107; effect lays some stress upon the fact that the new lease contains a covenant by the lessee to yield up the premises at the end of the term in as good condition as at the time of the lease,72 but it does not seem that this can be material since, even in its absence, a tenant has no right to remove improvements covered by the lease to him. In a number of jurisdictions, especially in the most recent years, this doctrine, that the acceptance of a new lease, not referring to the fixtures, involves the loss of the right of removal, has been repudiated.73 Furthermore, it would seem to be inapplicable in any jurisdiction where removable fixtures are regarded as personal property,74 since, if personal property, they would not ordinarily be covered by a second lease, which is in terms of the land only. There appears to he some inconsistency between this rule, as asserted, that a renewal lease puts an end to the right of removal, and the decisions, before referred to,75 that a tenant holding

Sanitary Dist, of Chicago v Took. 169 111. 184, 39 L. R. A. 369. 61 Am. St. Rep. 161, 48 N. E. 461; Hed-derich v. Smith, 103 Ind. 203, 53 Am. Rep. 509. 2 N. E. 315; Carl in v. Ritter, 68 Md. 478, 13 Atl. 370, 16 Atl. 301, 6 Am. St. Rep. 467; Watriss v. Cambridge First Nat. Bank, 124 Mass. 571, 26 Am. Rep. 694. Champ Spring Co. v. B Roth Tool Co., 103 Mo. App. 103, 77 S. W. 344; Gerbert v. Sons of Abraham, 59 N. J. L. 160, 69 L. R. A. 764, 59 Am. St. Rep. 578, 35 Atl. 1121; Piecht v. Howard, 187 N. Y. 136, 79 N. E. 487; Spencer v. Commercial Co.. 30 Wash 520, 71 Pac. 53; Thresher v. East London Waterworks Co., 2 Barn. & C. 608.

72. Wadman v. Burke, 147 Cal. 351, 1 L R. A. (N. S.) 1192, 81 Pac. 1012; Watriss v. Cambridge First Nat. Bank, 124 Mass. 571,