Is there a surrender by operation of law when Cudmore accepted from the claimant the lease of March 30, 1915?

It seems to me that applying the principles laid down in the above cases to the present case must lead to the conclusion that there was in this case a surrender by operation of law when Cudmore accepted from the claimant the lease of March 30, 1915. It seems to me that the claimant, to quote what was said in Nicholls v. Atherstone, supra, “has been party to some act the validity of which he is by law afterwards estopped from disputing, and which would not be valid if his particular estate had continued.”