George C. Lauer Stone & Construction Co. v. Armour & Co., 149 Minn. 359 (1921)

The action is founded on the theory that the term of the lease had expired at the time the notice to quit was served, and that, by thereafter retaining possession of the property and failing to return it to plaintiff, defendant by implication of law is deemed to have accepted the conditions imposed and therefore liable for the increased rent. If the theory that the leasehold term had ended at the date of the notice be sustained by the evidence, defendant’s liability for the greater rent is clear. Gardner v. Board of Co. Commrs. of Dakota County, 21 Minn. 33; Moore *362v. Harter, 67 Oh. St. 250, 65 N. E. 883; Williams v. Foss-Armstrong Hdwe. Co. 135 Wis. 280, 115 N. W. 803. But if the lease had not expired there was no basis for the notice to quit and it must fall as without force or effect.