The lease provides in clear language that the term thereof should continue for such period as might be necessary to enable defendant, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, having due regard to economy in handling and using the same, to quarry, crush and ship the required quantity of material to the scene of the building operations. The undertaking in which defendant was engaged was an extensive one and large quantities of this class of material were necessary, to be used from time to time as the construction work progressed. Necessarily the parties contemplated that the time necessary for the purpose would 'be indefinite and extend over a considerable period. There was no unnecessary delay by defendant. The quarry was promptly taken over and no claim is made of unreasonable or other delay during the time the operations were under way. The suspension from June to September is not shown to have been unwarranted or unnecessary, and no conclusion of abandonment can be predicated thereon. Defendant was not required by the lease to continuously operate the quarry, and, under the liberal terms and provisions thereof, neither court nor jury could find that a failure to do so was a breach of the contract. Defendant had not at the date of the notice taken out enough material for its use, and the claim that some representative of the company had stated to plaintiff without qualification that defendant was through with the quarry is not sustained by the facts disclosed. There were some negotiations or attempted negotiations between the parties during the time work at the quarry was shut down looking to a possible relinquishment of rights under the lease. But nothing came of them and defendant resumed operations in September. In this state .of the facts, of which the record leaves no room for fair doubt, defendant’s rights under the lease had *363not ended and the demand for higher rent was without light and must fall as of no force or effect. The Gardner case, supra, is not in point. In that case the term of the lease had expired, of Which there was no dispute, and the tenant was holding over in the face of a demand for increased rent. Such is not the case at bar. Order affirmed.