I concur in the dissenting opinion, and further think the undisputed facts show that plaintiff had no right of action for rents at all. It was her duty, after she took possession, when the defendant refused to take the property, to do the best she could with it, and she could only recover the difference between what she was able to get out of it, and the agreed rent. This is, of course, upon the supposition that there was a valid demise which defendant had no right to treat as rescinded.