
    Dorrill vs. Stephens.
    Where there is a written Lease to pay a certain sum annually, if it be not paid annually, it carries interest.
    Where the lease is for a term of years, with an annual rent, if the tenant holds over the term, without any thing being said as to a new contract, the law presumes that he holds subject to the same annual rent as stipulated in the contract, and if interest is recoverable on the annual arrears of the written lease, it will also be recoverable on the subsequent annual arrears.
    Defendant leased of the plaintiff’s assignor a House, for a term of years, stipulating to pay a certain rent per annum, to be paid annually. At the expiration of tin* lease the defendant continued in the occupation of the house, without any further agreement betwen him and the lessor. This was an action for use and occupation, for a period subsequent to the expiration of the written lease. The only question was as to interest. The Recorder ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to interest, there being no written stipulation to pay the rent. The plaintiff appealed.
    
      Clarke, for the motion.
    
      Eckhard, contra.
   Curia per

Johnson, J.

It is well settled that interest will not follow as a necessary legal consequence on an open unliquidated demand. Goddard vs. Bulow, 1 Nott and M’Cord 57. But the question arising in this case is controuled by another rule of equal authority. It is, that when a tenant holds over after the expiration of the lease, with the tacit consent of the landlord, the law implies an agreement on the part of the landlord that he will let, and on the part of the tenant that he will hold on the terms of the expired lease; (per Lord Mansfield in Right v Darby, 1 Term Rep. 162.) Thus substituting the contract with respect to the term which is past for that which is to come, not merely in form, but according to its substance and legal effect. It follows, that if by any express covenant or by a legal consequence contained in, or arising out of, tiie expired lease, the defendant was bound to pay interest on rent in arrear, he is under the same liability with.respect to the term for which he held oyer. In this case, by an express covenant in the expired lease, the rent was payable at the end of the year, and the sum being ascertained and liquidated would carry interest from the time fixed for its payment as a legal consequence, and according to the rule laid down, the plaintiif was entitled to recover interest on the annual balances on account of rent which be - came due in consequence of his holding over.

Motion granted.  