Thereafter, on January 10, 1920, plaintiff brought this action to recover the increased rent demanded by the notice just referred to, for the period from July 23 to the commencement of the action, alleging in the complaint that the term of the lease had expired prior to the date of the notice and that defendant’s subsequent retention of the quarry was as a holdover tenant, and at the increased rent demanded.Defendant by answer joined issue upon the question whether the lease had terminated -as claimed by plaintiff; also upon the further question whether the failure of defendant to surrender the premises in response to the notice exposed it to the greater liability demanded. ,At the close of the trial -a verdict was directed for defendant on the ground t-ha;. its leasehold rights had not expired by abandonment, consent of parties or otherwise, therefore that the notice to quit or pay more rent was unauthorized, hence ineffectual for 'any purpose. Plaintiff -appealed from an order denying a new trial.