The lessor's reversion, or estate in reversion, may be transferred by the lessor to another, and by the hitter again transferred, and so again by the last transferee, and each transferee becomes the landlord for the time during which he holds title to the reversion. The ordinary mode in which such a transfer, with its consequent change of landlords, occurs, is by voluntary conveyance by the lessor, or by his transferee, of his estate in the land. The conveyance need not refer in terms to the lease, a conveyance of the premises by the landlord being necessarily subject to the rights of the tenant, and consequently being of a reversionary interest only, provided the grantee, if a purchaser for value, has notice, actual or constructive, of the lease.4 Such notice the grantee may have from the tenant's possession of the premises5 or from the record of the lease, if the lease is within the recording laws, as leases, except for brief periods, usually are.6 In case the lease is within the recording laws, and is not recorded, and the grantee, being a purchaser for value, has no notice thereof otherwise, he will take free from any rights in the tenant under the lease. If, on the other hand, the lease is not within the recording laws, the grantee, although a purchaser for value, and without notice thereof, will, it seems, take subject thereto.7

Morrill, 126 Mass. 545, 30 Am. Rep. 695; Newell v. Bartlett, 114 N. Y. 399, 21 N. E. 990; Shindelbeck v. Moon, 32 Ohio St. 264, 30 Am. Rep. 584; Ward v. Hinkleman, 37 Wash. 375, 79 Pac. 956.

99. Tarry v. Ashton, 1 Q. B. Div. 314; De Tarr v. Ferd. Heim Brewing Co., 62 Kan. 188, 61 Pac.

689; Lee v. McLaughlin, 86 Me. 410, 26 L. R. A. 197, 30 Atl. 65; Beck v. Hanline, 122 Md. 68, 89 Atl. 377; Harris v. Cohen, 50 Mich. 324, 15 N. W. 493; Odell v. Solomon, 99 N. Y. 635, 1 N. E. 408; Marshall v. Heard, 59 Tex. 266. 1-3. Post chapter XVI (Rent).

A landlord, instead of transferring the reversion in the whole land, may transfer the reversion in part, he thus remaining landlord as to the part retained, and his transferee becoming landlord as to the part transferred.8

4. See Whittemore v. Smith, 50 Conn. 376; Yule v. Fell, 123 Iowa 662, 99 N. W. 559; Blake v. Ash-brook, 91 111. App. 45; Biddle v. Hussman, 23 Mo. 597; Anderson v. Conner, 43 N. Y. Misc. 384, 87 N. Y. Supp. 449; McCardell v. Williams, 19 R. I. 701, 36 Atl. 719. So the assignee of the leasehold takes subject to a sublease of which he has notice. Teater v. King, 35 Wash. 138, 76 Pac. 688.

5. Taylor v. Stibbert, 2 Ves. Jr. 437; Hunt v. Luck [1901] 1 Ch. 45; Scheerer v. Cuddy, 85 Cal. 270, 24 Pac. 713, McRae v. McMinn, 17 Fla. 876; Parker v. Gortatow-sky, 127 Ga. 560, 56 S. E. 846; Barrett v. Geisinger, 148 111. 98, 35 N. E. 354; Leebrick v. Stable, 68 Iowa 515, 27 N. W. 490; Buck v. Holloway's Devisees, 25 Ky. (2 J. J. Marsh.) 163, 180; Hull v. Noble, 40 Me. 459; Engler v. Garrett, 100 Md. 387, 59 Atl. 648; Disbrow v. Jones, Har. (Mich.) 48; Fried-lander v. Ryder, 30 Neb. 783, 9

L. R. A. 700, 47 N. W. 83; Chester-man v. Gardner, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 29, 9 Am. Dec. 265; Hot-tenstein v. Lerch, 104 Pa. St. 454; Simanek v. Nemetz, 120 Wis. 42, 97 N. W. 508.

6. Commercial Bank of Santa Ana v. Pritchard, 126 Cal. 600, 59 Pac. 130; Chapman v. Gray, 15 Mass. 439; Toupin v. Peabody, 162 Mass. 473, 39 N. E. 280; Bova v. Norigan, 28 R. I. 319, 125 Am. St. Rep. 741, 67 Atl. 326; Lucas v. Sunbury & E. R. Co., 32 Pa. St 458. See Johnson v. Stagg, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 510.

7. Toupin v. Peabody, 162 Mass. 473, 39 N. E. 280; Hutchinson v. Bramhall, 42 N. J. Eq. 372, 7 Atl. 873 (semble). But it has been held that the assignee of the leasehold is not affected by parol lease or license by the lessee as to part of the premises in favor of the lessor of which he had no notice. Burr v. Spencer, 26 Conn. 159, 68 Am. Dec. 379.

- Mortgage by landlord. The landlord, whether the original lessor or his transferee, may execute a mortgage upon the land, which, like an absolute conveyance, will ordinarily be subject to the prior lease, that is, it will not affect the right to possession under the lease.9 In jurisdictions where a mortgage transfers the legal title, the effect will be to make the mortgagee the reversioner and landlord in place of the mortgagor.10 In other jurisdictions it can have no such effect.11

- Attornment. It was formerly necessary in

England, in order that the relation of landlord and tenant might arise between the transferee of the reversion and the tenant of the land, that the tenant "attorn" to such transferee, that is, consent to the transfer, or, what is the same thing, consent to be the tenant of the transferee.12 This requirement was based upon the personal nature of the relation between the landlord and the tenant in early times, and was dispensed with by Statute 34 Ann. c. 16, Sec.Sec. 9, 10, which provided, however, that the tenant should not be prejudiced by payment of rent before notice given him of the transfer. In a number merit of such a consideration, might, it seems, in the absence of any recognition of the statute of Anne or any local re-enactment thereof, be regarded as taking effect by way of bargain and sale, for the purpose of dispensing with the necessity of an attornment.

8. Moodie v. Garnance, 3 Bulst. 153; West v. Lassels, Cro. Eliz. 851; Linton v. Hart, 25 Pa. St. 193, 64 Am. Dec. 691; Leiter v. Pike, 127 111. 287, 20 N. E. 23, aff'g 26 111. App. 530.

9. Moss v. Gallimore, 1 Doug. 279; Rogers v. Humphreys, 4 Adol. & E. 299, 313; Burden v. Thayer, 44 Mass. (3 Mete.) 76, 37 Am. Dec. 117.

10. Moss v. Gallimore, 1 Doug. 279; Comer v. Sheehan, 74 Ala. 452; Coffey v. Hunt, 75 Ala. 236; King v. Housatonic R. Co., 45 Conn. 226; Burden v. Thayer, 44

Mass. 3 (Mete.) 76, 37 Am. Dec. 117; Mirick v. Hoppin, 118 Mass. 582; Kimball v. Pike, 18 N. H. 419; Kimball v. Lockwood, 6 R. I. 138; Burden v. Thayer, 44 Mass. (3 Mete.) 76, 37 Am. Dec. 117.