An alteration in the character of land leased, as by the conversion of meadow into arable land, or of arable land into wood, or e converso, has been usually stated to be waste, the reasons given being, firstly, that the course of husbandry is thereby changed, and secondly, that the identity of the property is affected, with the result of rendering the proof of title more difficult.33 The first reason for the rule has been stated to be inapplicable in this country, where the custom has ordinarily been for farmers to change the mode of using land ad libitum34 and the second reason is likewise inapplicable, since land is almost invariably, at the present day, described by metes and bounds or courses and distances, or by reference to a plat or survey, and not by its particular character.35 And it was held in one case that the ploughing of certain meadow land was not waste, it being shown by evidence that such plowing was good husbandry.36 Still an entire change in the character of the premises leased, if evidently not contemplated by the lessor at the time of leasing, as, for instance, if land which has previously been used for pasture purposes only is entirely ploughed up and planted with crops, might well be regarded by the courts as an act of waste, without reference to whether it actually

32a. Post Sec. 290, note 70.

33. Co. Litt. 53 b; Bac. Abr. Waste, C. 1; City of London v. Greyme, Cro. Jac. 181; Darcy v. Askwith, Hob. 234; Simmons v. Norton, 7 Bing. 640; Murphy v. Daly, 13 Ir. C. L. 239.

34. Pynchon v. Stearns, 52 Mass. (11 Metc.) 304, 45 Am. Dec. 207; Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 272, 53 Am. Dec. 621. See 3 Dane's Abr.

218

35. Pynchon v. Stearns, 52 Mass. (11 Metc.) 304, 45 Am. Dtc. 207; Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 272, 53 Am. Dec. 621. See 3 Dane's Abr. 218.

36. Hubble v. Cole, 85 Va. 87, 7 S. E. 242. And see Mize v. Burnett, 162 Mo. App. 441, 145 S. W. 150.