In Hunt v. Bailey, it appeared that the tenant made no dissent whatever and continued in possession of the premises for three months after the expiration of his term, when a tender of rent was made in accordance with the terms of the prior lease. It was in considering these facts the court said, “It was his (the tenant’s) duty to manifest his dissent within a reasonable time, in order that the landlord might have taken the necessary steps to have acquired the possession and reoccupied the premises, had it been deemed *195proper to do so. By Ms continuing- in possession and remaining silent, the landlord! had the right to construe his silence into an assent or acquiescence and hold Mm for the increased rent.” But all of this relates to the statement of fact immediately preceding it which goes to show the tenant remained in possession three months after his term had expired and manifested his dissent from the proposed increase of rent only when he tendered the first quarter’s rent on the new term. The court thus states the facts pertaining to this matter: “When the first quarter had expired and a. bill was presented for the increased rent, he objected and tendered the amount according to the terms of the prior contract.” [Hunt v. Bailey, 39 Mo. 257, 267.] Obviously the dissent thus made three months after the prior term had expired and the new one commenced was not within a reasonable time.