Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	bring_v	case_n	writ_n	3,541	5	9.1378	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34802	Lex custumaria, or, A treatise of copy-hold estates in respect of the lord, copy-holder wherein the nature of customs in general, and of particular customs, grants and surrenders, and their constructions and expositions in reference to the thing granted or surrendred, and the uses or limitations of estates are clearly illustrated : admittances, presentments, fines and forfeitures are fully handled, and many quaeries and difficulties by late resolution setled : leases, licences, extinquishments of copy-hold estates, and what statutes extend to copy-hold estates are explained : and also of actions by lord or tenant, and the manner of declaring and pleading, either generally or as to particular customs, with tryal and evidence holder may recieve relief in the Court of Chancery : to which are annexed presidents of conveyances respecting copy-holds, releases, surrenders, grants presentmets, and the like : as also presidents of court rolls, surrenders, admittances, presentments, &c. / by S.C., Barister at Law.	Carter, Samuel, barrister at law.	1696 (1696)	Wing C665; ESTC R4622	239,406	434

to him might have been barr'd and interrupted by non-claim so in case of forfeiture the reason of the Rule is because the Law conceives he will have that knowledge to preserve his right when he is of full Age Carter's Rep. 86. in Smith and Painton's Case It was holden in Rumny and Eve's Case Not bound during his Minority to pray Admittance 1 Leon. p. 100 Pl. 128. If a Copy-holder dyeth his Heir within Age he is not bound to come into any Court during his non-age to pray admittance or to tender his Fine An Infant who surrenders his Copy-hold Land within Age may enter at his full Age Infant Surrenders he may enter at full Age. without being put to any Suit for it A Case cited in Popham 39. in Bullock and Dibler's Case Infant Copy-holder in Fee makes a Lease for years without Licence Infant shall not forfeit by making a Lease without Licence Acceptance at full Age makes it good to Lessee rendring Rent at full Age he accepts the Rent and after outs the Lessee Lessee brings Ejectment and Judgment for Lessee Per Cur. this Lease may be affirmed by acceptance and such a Forfeiture shall not bind an Infant 8 Rep. 44. Noy 92. Of Copy-holds and Copy-holders in respect of the King and his Prerogative Per Stat. 2 Ed. 6. Cap. 8. Copy-holders shall enjoy their Estates where the King is intituled by Office though they be not found by Inquisition The Statute of Chantries gives no Copy-hold Land to the King 1 Ed. 6.14 The Estates of the Kings Copy-holders confirmed by Decree in the Exchequer or Dutchy-Chamber shall be good according to the same Decree Stat. 7 Jac. Cap. 21. A Popish Recusant shall forfeit all his Copy-hold Land 35 Eliz. Cap. 2. Whether the King shall have the Copy-hold granted in Trust for an Alien It was a Question in Car. 1. between the King and Holland whether the King shall have a Copy-hold which is granted to one in Trust for an Alien The better Opinion seems to be that he shall Styles Rep. p. 20.37 75. Vide this Case Reported in Rolls 1. Abr. 194. Tit. Alien If an Alien Amy Purchase Copy-hold in Fee in the Name of J. S. in Trust for himself and his Heirs It was a great Question and much Argued whether the King shall have the Trust of this Copy-hold but no Opinion given as to this Point But the Trust being traversed and found for the King yet Judgment was given against the King because by the Inquisition by which this Trust and matter was found J. S. who was the person trusted and who had the Estate in Fee in the Law in him Where the King hath no possion by force of the Inquisition was put out of possession of it by the Inquisition where the Alien had but the Trust and no possession and therefore admitting that the Trust should have been given to the King yet the King may not have the possession by force of this but ought to have sued to have the Trust executed in a Court of Equity The King is seized of a Manor in Fee in which is a Copy-hold demisable at Will according to the Custom of the Manor The King demised this Copy-hold to J. G. for Life King need not recite in his Grant that it is Copy-hold by Letters Patents J. G. dyes The great Question was if it be destroyed or the King may grant it again by Copy Per Cur. 1. The King need not recite in the Grant that it is Copy-hold 24 H. 8.21 2. Copy-holder for Life dyes the King may regrant That after the Estate for Life determined the King may grant this House and Land again by Copy of Court Roll It is otherwise in the Case of a common person The Rule That a Custom is an entire thing and cannot be apportioned shall not bind the King although it do bind a Common person The Kings Gifts shall be taken favourably and not extended to two intents where there is no necessity for it Kings Grants favourably construed as there is not here and we are not here to intend a collateral intent and so the Copy-hold is not destroyed for the Law takes care to preserve the Inheritance of the King for his Successors and it may be a benefit to the King to have it continue Copy-hold viz. to have Common Stiles p. 266. Cremer and Burnet If a Bishop Tenant in Tayl for Life or Years le ts a Copy-hold yet this shall not bind the Successor Issue in Tayl or him in Reversion to grant this by Copy again neither shall it bind an Infant Lord of Manor and the Estates and Possessions of the King are in like manner under the protection of the Law And if this Copy-hold should be extinguished Extinguishment perhaps a common Appendant or Appurtenant would be lost 2 Rolls Abr. p. 197. mesme Case If the King grants a Manor in which are Copy-holders in Fee-farm the Lands or Goods of the Copy-holder are not lyable to the Fee-farm Rent although the Freehold is Fee-Farm Rent because the Copy-holders are elder than the Rent being by Prescription 2 Rolls Abridgment p. 157. Loss of Issues If the Lord of a Manor lose Issues being summoned upon a Jury Process shall issue out of the Exchequer to levy them upon the Lands of the Copy-holders Lessees for Life or Years for the loss of Issues lyes upon the Land as an inherent Servitude by the Law in whose Hands soever it comes 1 Rolls Abr. 157. Surrender to the King without other matter of Record A Surrender of a Copy-hold to the King Lord of a Manor was in Lee and Boothby's Case 1 Keb. 720. adjudged good without other matter of Record All the Demesn Lands The King grants all his Demesn Lands in W. his Copy-hold Lands shall not pass Aliter in a common person 1 Rep. 46. Alton Wood's Case CAP. IV. The Nature of Custom in general Maxims of Customs What things are requisite to make a good Custom Time out of Memory Explained What shall be said to be an Interruption of Custom or not The reasonableness of Customs how to be judged of Several particular Customs Ratione Loci Of Customs enabling and disabling Of Customs and Prescriptions their difference and the different manner of Pleading them The several sorts of Prescription and how Prescription to be made and when and when not and by whom And when a Custom shall be said to be pursued or not Custom The Nature of Custom in general A Custom which hath obtained the force of a Law is always said to be Jus non scriptum for it cannot be made or created either by Charter or by Parliament which are Acts reduced to Writing and are always matter of Record But being only matter of Fact and consisting in Use and Practice it can be recorded and registred no where but in the Memory of the People For a Custom taketh beginning and

mortem sursum redditionem vel forisfacturam of the Feme and after the Husband Surrenders to the Use of B. for Life and so he is Admitted Tenant and after dyes In this Case C. shall not have this because his Estate is not to commence till after the Death Surrender or Forfeiture of the Feme and the Feme here is in Life and had not made any Surrender or Forfeiture and the Wife had right in this in the nature of a plaint de cui in vita But the Lord in this Case may retain it in his own proper hands or disposition Occupant during the Life of the Husband quasi an Occupant Dyer 9 El. 264. Sect. 38. Surrender to whom To the Wife By the Husband to the Use of the Wife is good vide supra and 4 Rep. 29. Bunting's Case for it is done by Surrender to the Lord and Admittance To the Steward A Surrender made to the Steward to the Use of the Steward is good for the Entry is quod sursum reddidit in manus Domini and the Steward is but the Lords Servant and the surrender is to the Lord and not to him Cro. El. p. 717. Erish and Rives So Infant Vide supra Of Countermand of a Surrender Where the Surrender of a Copy-hold may be Countermanded by the Party himself and what collateral Act without the assent and privity of the Party shall be a countermand and where and what not Grant by Baron and Feme shall bind the Feme notwithstanding the Coverture so Grant by non compos mentis Infant Vide supra Vide supra Where and what Grants by Lords of Manors shall be good or defeasible in respect of the Estate they had therein Surrender is not Countermanded by the death of Surrenderor before Presentment 4 Rep. 29 Bunting's Case VVhere the Customs are not pursued the surrenders are void Vide sparsim and 5 Rep. 84. Peryman's Case Surrender by Steward or Deputy Steward and of persuing their Warrants vide Steward supra What remedy to force a Trustee to Surrender A Copy-holder doth surrender to the Use of one A. in Trust In the Lord's Court. that he shall hold the Land until he hath levied certain Monies and that afterwards he shall surrender to the Use of B. The Monies are levied A. is required to make surrender to the Use of B. he refuseth B. exhibits a Bill to the Lord of the Manor against A. who upon hearing of the Cause Decrees against A. That he shall Surrender he refuseth Now the Lord may seize and admit B. to the Copy-hold for he in such case is Chancellor in his own Court Per totam Curiam 1 Leon. 2. Or relief may be had in Chancery CAP. XVI Of Presentment How and when to be made How to be pursuant to the Surrender What the Law is if Surrenderor or Cesty que use or the customary Tenants into whose Hands the Surrender was made dye before Presentment or Admittance VVhere two Surrenders are and the second Surrender is presented first Presentment No good Surrender till presented IF the Surrender be made out of Court into the Hands of the Lord himself which the general Custom will warrant or into the Hands of the Bayliff or of two Tenants of the Manor which is warrantable only by special Custom there must be a true Presentment of the Surrender in Court by the same Persons into whose Hands the Surrender was made and the Admittance of the Lord must be according to the effect and tenor of both the Surrender and Presentment It is not an effectual Surrender till it be presented in Court And therefore in an Action on the Case on Assumpsit in Consideration that the Plaintiff would surrender to the Defendant and his Heirs a Copyhold according to the Custom of the Manor Defendant assumed to pay 500 l. and for breach of this promise the Plaintiff brings the Action and had a Verdict but Judgment was arrested because the Consideration on the Plaintiffs part was not performed for the Consideration was That he should surrender the Copy-hold to the Defendant and his Heirs and he hath alledged the surrender to be into the Hands of a Copy-hold Tenant of the Manor to Use of the Defendant which is no surrender untill it be presented at the next Court and so it is uncertain whether it shall take effect or not Stiles p. 256. Shaan and Shaan The Presentment by the general Custom of Manors is to be made at the next Court day When to be be made immediately after the surrender but by special Custom at the second or third day afterwards and by Rolls in Jay's Case Stiles 275. there is no certain time but as the Custom is so that it be within the Life of the Tenant it is to be made by the same persons that took the Surrender and in points material according to the true tenor of the Surrender But if the Surrender be conditional Presentment must pursue the Surrender and the Presentment absolute the Surrender Presentment and Admittance are void except the Steward in the entry of it omits the Condition and upon sufficient proof made in Court of that the Surrender shall not be avoided but the Roll amended and this shall be no conclusion to the Party to plead or give in Evidence the truth of the matter 4 Rep. 25. Kite and Quinton But in May's Case Norf. Summer Assises 1663. The Custom of a Manor was for a Copy-holder in extremis to surrender into one Tenants Hands in the presence of credible Witnesses and a Surrender was made accordingly but presented to be done to another Tenant yet being proved to be done to a Tenant of the Manor It was holden by Wadham Windham Justice to be good Of Presentment where the Surrenderor or Surrendree Cesty que use or customary Tenants dye before Presentment or Admittance Surrenderor dyes If one Surrender out of Court and dye before Presentment if Presentment be made after his death this is good 4 Rep. 29. Bunting's Case Cesty que use dyes If Cesty que use he to whose Use the Surrender is made dyeth before Presentment yet upon Presentment made after his death his Heir shall be admitted Stiles p. 145. Barker and Denhan Surrenderor and Cesty que use both dye If one Surrender out of Court to the Use of one for Life the Surrenderor and the Lessee for Life both dye before the Presentment yet upon Presentment made he in Remainder shall be Admitted Surrendree dyes Surrendree dyes before Admittance his Heir may be Admitted and if it be Burrough-English the youngest Son 2 Siderfin 38 61. The Tenants into whose hands the Surrender was made dye If the Tenant into whose Hands the Surrender was made dye before Presentment yet upon sufficient proof made in Court That such a Surrender was made the Lord shall be compelled to admit Co. Lit. 62. Nothing passeth till presentment But nothing passeth till Presentment

surrendred all the three Lives and though it was not a Copy-hold in Fee yet it was decreed That the Agreement should be performed and that the Defendant do Surrender to the Plaintiffs Use and an Injunction for quiet enjoyment A Woman Copy-holder for Life took an Husband and the Reversion of the said Copy-hold was granted to three viz. A. B. C. cum acciderit by Surrender or Forfeiture for their Lives successive according to the Custom The Husband doth Surrender to the Use of A. for Life to whom the Lord doth grant a Copy accordingly A. and B. dye and the Opinion of the Court was That C. hath no right to be admitted by the Law nor in Conscience for that after the death of the Husband the Wife may enter and have a Plaint in nature of a Cui in vita contradicere non potest and during the Husbands Life the Lord may have it in the nature of an Occupancy But the Case did proceed farther viz. That the Husband and Wife were willing to release all the Right of the Wife to the surviving Reversioner The Lord Decreed to hold a Court. and the Lord would not receive it nor hold a Court But it was decreed That the Lord should hold his Court and accept their Conveyance or else avoid the Possession thereof Dyer 246. a. Copy-hold Estate in some cases not to be passed but by Decree Where the Lord grants the Reversion of the Copy-holds the Tenant cannot Surrender there being no Dominus servitiorum as the Custom will warrant and he cannot pass his Estate any way but by a Decree in Chancery and this will bind the person only 4 Rep. p. 25. in Murrel's Case vide supra Fines and Rents arrear not relieved after Sale of the Manor Copy-hold Tenant in Fee surrenders to the Use of one for Life Remainder to B. in Fee Tenant for Life dies and B. pays no Fine for his Admittance but after dies and this descends to his Son and after his Son surrenders to the Use of J. S. in Fee and no Fine paid for it and also the Rents for divers years are behind and after the Lord grants the Manor in Fee to J. B. and after sues in a Court of Equity for the Fines and Rents due before the Sale of the Manor and alledgeth in his Bill That the Copy-holder had Free Land intermixed with the Copy-hold Land so that he could not know where to Distrain for it yet he shall not be relieved in Equity for this for it is against a Maxim in Law for as much as by his own Act he had destroyed his Remedy P. 10 Car. B. R. Serjeant Hicham Plaintiff and Finch and Block Defendants and a Prohibition was granted to the Court of Requests where the Suit was Gold versus Dore Martis 23. Oct. 2 Jac. The Plaintiff delivered to the Defendant an 100 l. to buy a Copy-hold in the Defendants Name but to the Plaintiffs Use because there were differences between the Lord of the Manor and the Plaintiff so as the Plaintiff had no hopes to prevail for himself and when the Copy-hold should be obtained then the Trust was That the Defendant should Surrender the same to the Use of the Plaintiff The Defendant accordingly bought the Copy-hold Trustee refusing to surrender according to his Trust not relieved and took it in his own name and his Childrens but afterwards would not surrender it to the Use of the Plaintiff notwithstanding the same was bought with the Plaintiffs mony for this the Plaintiff Exhibited his Bill in Chancery and this appearing to be the true state of the Case my Lord would not relieve the Plaintiff because he said he would never ground a Decree upon a Lye a Falsity it appearing to him that this packing was used to thrust a Tenant upon the Lord whom he liked not and so dismist the Cause Tracy versus Noel M. 2 Jac. Copy-holder in Fee takes a Lease the Manor is sold Copy-holder not relieved though the Purchaser had notice A Copy-holder of Inheritance took a Lease for years of his Copy-hold from the Lord of the Manor the Lord sold his Manor to J. S. who had notice of this Copy-hold of Inheritance yet would not this Court relieve the Copy-holder his Lease being ended for by Law his Copy-hold Estate is determined Robes Purchased the Inheritance of a Copy-hold in the Name of B. and another in Trust B. surrendred his moiety to the Use of his own Son and the other died seized The Son of B. and the Heir of the other for mony sold the Copy-hold to C. for 50 l. being of the value of 80 l. Robes sued the Son of B. and the Heir of the other and C. in Chancery for the 80 l. It was decreed That A. should recover this 50 l. only from B. and the Heir of the other No Recompence for the over-value of an Estate because no Fraud and C. should be discharged of it and hold it in peace But if notice had been proved in C. Robes shall have the Land and no recompence for the over-value was given against the Vendors because no Fraud Moor Rep. n. 745. Kobes Bent and Cock's Case Copy-hold devised without Surrender executed by Decree in Chancery A Copy-hold devised without Surrender it cannot be executed in point of Interest but only by Decree in Chancery by a Concessum in 2 Keb. 837. Harrison's Case A Copy-hold granted out of a Manor confirmed Court Rolls produced A Copy-hold granted at a Court kept out of the Manor confirmed against the Lord who made it Tothil 107. Mark contra Suliard In Corbet and Peshal's Case 12 Jac. it was Ordered That Court Rolls should be brought and shewed to Councel to shew which is Copy-hold and which is Free-hold Composition Decreed Sterling's Case a Composition formerly made between Lords and Tenants Decreed to bind a Purchasor or an Heir 9 Car. Bill in Chancery to reverse a Faux Judgment in the Lords Court If an erroneous Judgment be given in a Copy-hold Court of a common Lord in a Formedon a Bill may be exhibited in Chancery in nature of a Faux Judgment to reverse it Pateshull's Case in Scaccario 1 Rolls Abridgment 373. Admission by Letter of Attorny Copy-holder ought not to be admitted to a Copy-hold Estate by Letter of Attorny for he ought to do Fealty at the time of his Admittance which must be done in person 21 Car. 2. Flyer and Hedgingham Fines certain or not having been tryed at Law no farther Relief here Smith contra Sallet 24 Car. 2. Fines of Copy-holders whether certain or arbitrary it having been tryed at Law and in two Tryals Verdict for Fines certain This Court would not relieve the Plaintiff other than for the preservation of Witnesses and so dismist the Plaintiffs Bill it being to have an Issue directed to try whether certain or not Morgan versus Scudamore 29 Car. 2. The Lord limitted to a

and how they differ What Customs for Harriots are good or not Where they shall be apportioned and by whose Acts. Who shall pay Harriot or not and the Pleadings CAP. XXVI What Statutes extend to Copy-hold Lands and within what Statutes Copy-hold Lands shall be contained by Construction of Law without express words and what not and therein how Copy-holds shall be barred by Fine and non-claim c. CAP. XXVII Of Embleaments Who shall have them the Lord or the Copy-holder CAP. XXVIII What shall be said a Disseisin as to Copy-hold Estates or not CAP. XXIX Of Actions and Suits What Actions may be brought by the Lord and what Actions may be brought by Copy-holders or their Executors against the Lord or against Strangers in respect to their Copy-hold Estates and Priviledges CAP. XXX Of Copy-holders being impleaded and impleadable in the Lords Court and a Faux Judgment in the Lords Court and how and where to be relieved CAP. XXXI Of Declarations of for and concerning Copy-hold Estates how to be brought and laid and Presidents in what Cases they have been brought CAP. XXXII Of Pleadings The general Rules of Pleading as to Copy-hold Estates The different Forms of Pleading Customs and Prescriptions Of Pleading in reference to Common belonging to Copy-hold and when to be pleaded by way of Custom or by way of Prescription The manner of Pleading when a Lease is to be answered which is set forth in the Avowry Where in pleading the Commencement of the Estate must be shewed and by whom granted or not And how a Licence must be pleaded by the Lessee Prescription of Copy-holder to be discharged of Tythes how to be pleaded Of Traverses when how and where to be taken Forms of Pleading of Surrenders Admittances Estates in Fee Tayl for Lives or Years Pleadings of Presentments and Grants Presidents of bars by Commons Woods Ways Inclosures Forfeitures and all other Pleadings necessary for the Copy-holder to set forth his Title or defend it CAP. XXXIV Evidence Tryal Issue What shall be a good Evidence to prove the Custom alledged or not What shall be tryed by the Jury and what by the Court Rolls Who may be admitted to give Evidence When Issue is taken upon a Surrender where to be tryed Venue CAP. XXXIV Of Special Verdicts Imperfect Custom not well found Failure of Prescription How the Custom must be found by the Jury Presidents of special Verdicts CAP. XXXV How and in what Cases Copy-holders have been relieved in Chancery Presidents of Conveyances respecting Copy-hold Estates and Presidents of Surrenders Grants Admittances Presentments Lex Custumaria OR A TREATISE OF Copy-hold ESTATES c. CAP. I. Of the Original and Nature of a Manor and of what it consists Of a Manor Real and by Reputation Of a Customary Manor Of Grants and Leases of Manors with respect to this Subject of Copy-holds and what shall be said Parcel of a Manor or what shall be said a Severance FOR the right understanding of the Law as to Copy-hold Estates it 's necessary to premise something of the Nature and Notion of a Manor upon which they depend as the Materia though Custom is the Form thereof And I shall say no more of Manors than what shall have a direct influence upon the Explication of the nature of Copy-hold Original of Manors As for the Original of Manors Take this brief Account out of Perkins 670. Horns Mirror Lib. 1. Cap. de Roy Alfred Fulbeck f. 18. Lambert verbo Thaine Bacon's Elements of the Law 41 42 c. The ancient Kings of this Realm who had all the Lands of England in Demesn that is in their own Hands or totally at their own disposal did grant a certain compass or circuit of Ground upon some great Personages with liberty to parcel out the Lands to other inferior Tenants reserving such Duties and Services as they thought fit with power to keep Courts where they might redress Misdemeanors within such their Precincts and decide Controversies of meum and tuum within their Jurisdictions these Lords and Noblemen performing such Services and paying and yielding such Rents as the said Kings by their Grants reserved These Grantees were called Barons and were such as came to Parliament and from thence it keeps the name of Court Baron to this day though in process of time by the Grants of such Barons these Lands and Manors came into the Hands of meaner Men by Purchase c. as it is at this day And according to this our Custom all Lands holden in Fee throughout France are divided into Feifs and Arrear-Feifs into Feifs or Knights Fees and Mesne Fees whereof the former are such as were granted by the King the second such as the Kings Feudatories do again grant to others Now by Justice Winch in his Argument in the Case of Rowles and Mason 2 Brownlow 195. Manors are divided into three sorts of Tenures 1. The first holds by Knight Service and this is for defence of the Lord. 2. The second holds by Socage and this is to Plow and Manure the Demesns of the Lord c. since turn'd into Rent 3. The third holds by base Tenure and these are at the will of the Lord and these were to do Services and some had greater Priviledges than others to encourage them to perform their Services as it is in Ireland at this day Out of these by length of time and Custom sprang up the Race of Copy-holders For the Name or Etymology of the word Manor Etymology some fancy it to be Manerium quasi Manurium from manuring the Ground and then it takes its Name either from the Lords Demesns which the Tenants are bound to Manure or from the Lands remaining in the Tenants hands and others with more probability think it to be derived from the French word Mesner to govern or guide because the Lord hath the government of the Tenants within his Jurisdiction But that I may come to the thing intended and to leave the flourishes of guess and fancy It is a Maxim common in our Books Of what a Manor consists Demesns what That a Manor consists of Demesns and Services As for the word Demesns Dominicum or Domainium it is taken it two senses It is most properly taken for those Lands which remain in the Kings hands and so all Subjects are excluded from being seized in Dominico and we have little of that now but ancient Demesn Lands which are such as were in the hands of King Edward the Confessor But in a sense less proper Demesn Lands may be said to be in the hands of an inferior Lord or Tenant and as my Lord Coke on Littleton f. observes the form of Pleading shews this difference for an inferior Lord or Tenant never pleads That he is seized in Dominico absolutely but qualified with this addition in dominico suo ut de feodo Pleading and the word Fee or Feif implies that his Estate is not absolute but depending on some superior Lord. So

the Lord M. with divers Remainders over with a Proviso That the Donees non facerent aliquid in nocumentum vel ex heredat haeredum suorum vel c. sed tantum pro junctura vel pro termino vitae vel pro annis vel ad voluntatem secundum consuetudinem manerij reddend antiquum redditum The said Manor consisted of divers free Rents amounting to 7 l. 15 s. Copy-hold Tenements held for Lives the customary Rent of which was 3 l. and Waste and Herriots The free Rents or Copy-hold Rents or Herriots were never devised before for Life or Years or otherwise A post mortem viri by Fine grants and renders the moiety of the Manor for 300 years rendring Rent amounting to the Free and Copy-hold Rents and 8 d. more payable at two Feasts whereas the ancient Rents were payable at four Per Cur. the Lease was void the Copy-holds ought to have been granted by Copy and not by Fine and the reservation at two days where the Rent was payable at four days before made the Grant void for its ad nocumentum haered and there can be no apportionment in that case for Copy-holds for Lives are uncertain and Herriots accidental When two Ferms are joyned together the entire Rent which is reserved out of both of them is a new Rent and not the accustomable Rent 5 Rep. 5. Lord Mountjoy's Case By whom made Ecclesiastical person If a Bishop let Copy-hold Land for Life rendring the ancient Rent it s not good because the Successor cannot Distrain the Copy-holder for Rent but if it be of a Manor to which a Copy-hold belongs its good Lit. Rep. 305. in Sheers Case Dean and Chapter of Worcester Lord of a Manor in jure Ecclesiae of which Manor H. G. was a Copy-holder for Life of Lands under the Rent of 8 s. 8 d. per annum payable Quarterly and Herriotable at the death of the Tenant the Copy-holds were by the Custom grantable for three Lives they demise the said Lands to H. G. and his Assigns for the Lives of R. J. and M. and the survivor of them renduring 8 s. 4 d. per annum at two Feasts Question was if this Lease were good or might be avoided by the Successor Per the Statute 13 Eliz. Cap. 10. It was resolved 1. The Lease was good though it was made pur auter vies and that the Occupants shall be punishable for Waste 2. Customary Demises are within this Law Customary demises are not in the Statute 13 Fl. cap. 10. for this Estate granted by Copy was in judgment of Law an Estate at Will and without doubt Lands which have been accustomed to be demised at will by those which have the Inheritance of the Land rendring rent are Lands accustomably let to Farm within the said Act. 3. The said Act of 13 El. doth not avoid the Lease if the accustomed yearly Rent or more be reserved and for that an Herriot is not a thing Annual nor a thing depending on the Rent it sufficeth if the Annual Rent be reserved 6 Rep. 37. Dean and Chapter of Worcesters Case Cro. Jac. 76. Baugh and Heyns mesme Case As to Leases by Bishops of Manors consisting of Copy-hold Lands and Services of Free-Tenants and reserving the ancient Rent vide 3 Keb. 372. Mod. Rep. 203. Threadneedle and Lynham Infant Copy-holder in Fee leaseth for years Infant without Licence by parcel rendring Rent Lease affirmed by acceptance at full Age he accepts the Rent being admitted to the Copy-hold and after ousts his Lessee Lessee brought Ejectment Judgment for the Lessee Per Cur. this Lease for years is no Disseisin to the Lord though it may be a Forfeiture and this Lease is not void but voidable and may be affirmed by acceptance Noy p. 92. Ashfield's Case Lach. p. 199. Vide Rolls Rep. 256. By a Copy-holder or Heir before Admittance vide Admittance As to Rents reserved Lands at Common Law and Copy-hold Lands are leased by one Indenture Lease of Free-hold and Copy-hold the Rent issues out of both rendring Rent the whole Rent shall issue out of the Lands at Common Law and not out of the Copy-hold But if a man leaseth Land part of which he hath by Disseisin rendring Rent there the Rent shall issue out of the whole Land and by the entry of the Disseisee the Rent shall be apportionted Moor n. 144. Term. Pasch 5 El. But the Law is not so for in Collins and Harding's Case Moor n. 723. the Judges were divided in Opinion about this very point But in Rolls 2 Abr. p. 426. it is resolved That this Rent shall issue out of the Copy-hold Land as well as out of the other Land for a Rent may be reserved out of the Copy-hold Land and this is such a thing to which one may resort for a Distress Collins and Harding's Case And this Case is farther Reported by Rolls 1 Abr. p. 234. If a man Lease for years Freehold Land and also Copy-hold Land by Licence of the Lord reserving a Rent and after grants the Reversion of the Free Land to another and the Lessee Attorn the Rent shall be apportioned for this waits upon the Reversion Rent apportioned vide Collins and Harding's Case also Reported in Cro. El. p. 600 622. The Rent issueth out of both and is not like to a Lease of Lands and Goods for all the Rent is there issuing out of the Lands and it is now in the Hands of the Grantee as one entire Reversion Pleading and he shall declare accordingly and although they be several Reversions yet he shall declare upon the truth of the matter Copy-holder by Licence of the Lord demised the same by Indenture to the Plaintiff for twenty years under the Rent of 25 l. per annum the Copy-holder surrenders the Reversion of the one moiety of the same Copy-hold to the Use of one N. W. to which he was admitted and then the Reversion of the other moiety to W. who was admitted Per Cur. the Surrender by the name of a Reversion is good though the Lease is by Indenture and not by Surrender Rent apportioned which if it had been so it had been derived directly out of the customary Estate for still it is the Lease of the Copy-holder and not of the Lord. Quaere if the Copy-holder in this case should forfeit his Estate the Lease would stand good against the Lord being by Licence And Per Cur. the Rent is to be divided by moyeties according to the halves of the Reversion and in this case it was resolved there needed no Attornment upon the Surrender for the Admittance settles the Estate Attornment Hobart 177. Swinnerton and Miller It was said by Hale Chief Justice That a Lease for years of Lands that are Copy-hold Lease of Copy-hold without taking notice that it was Copy-hold particularly without taking notice that this was Copy-hold this is good for the Rent of the Copy-holder and after

329. If a Copy-holder Lease for three years by the Custom and he leaseth for three years A Lease from three years to three years and so from three years to three years unto nine years this is a Forfeiture for this is a Lease for six years at least 1 Rolls Abr. 508. Luttrel and Weston T. Let Copy-hold Lands to W. by Articles of Agreement with promise and Covenant to hold for a year to halves at such a Rent according to the Custom of the Manor and so from year to year for five years the Question was If this be a Forfeiture And by the Justices in C. B. 19 Car. 2. in the Case of Lenthal and Wallop against Thomas A Covenant and not a Lease and so no Forfeiture It s no Lease A Covenant to hold to halves makes a Lease in no case A covenant and promise that J. S. shall have my Lands for five years may be a Lease where a Lease may be made especially where the words Covenant and Agreed is added but only by a favourable construction of Law which shall never work a Forfeiture 2 Keb. p. 267. Lease for years not warranted is no disseisin to the Lord. Note Lease for years by a Copy-hold though it be a Forfeiture yet it s not any disseisin to the Lord 8 Rep. 44. Noy 92. Therefore Infant Copy-holder in Fee leaseth for years sans Licence rendring Rent at full Age he accepts the Rent and after ousts the Lessee The Lessee brings Ejectment and Judgment for him Per Cur. this Lease may be affirmed by acceptance and agreed that such a Forfeiture doth not bind an Infant What Alienation shall be a Forfeiture and what not Surrender by a Tenant for Life to the Use of another in Fee is no Forfeiture Moor n. 983. Oldcot's Case If Tenant for Life of a Copy-hold suffer a Recovery as Tenant in Fee this is no Forfeiture of his Estate for the Free-hold is concerned and it is in a Court Baron where there is no Estoppel Mod. Rep. 199. Bird and Kick 200. If he make a Deed of feoffment and no Livery it s not a Forfeiture nothing passeth and so it s no alienation aliter of a Lease Quaere if the Feoffment be with Letter of Attorny Co. Lit. 59. Of Forfeitures by Waste If a Copy-holder erect a new House upon his Copy-hold without Licence Waste Erecting a new House this is not any Forfeiture for this is for the melioration of the Tenement 1 Rolls Abr. 507. Cecil and Cave A Mill. If he erect a Mill upon his Copy-hold it is a Forfeiture by Dodredge Lach. p. 123. in Grey's Case If a Copy-holder build an House upon his Copy-hold and after pulls it down again this is a Forfeiture 1 Bulst 50. Brook and Bear Where the Lord hath any other recompence the Law will not make any Forfeiture as Custom to amerce or fine for Hedges Inclosing Lit. Rep. 267. in Paston and Utbert's Case If a Copy-holder commits waste against the Custom of the Manor it is a Forfeiture 4 Rep. 27. Clifton's Case Voluntary waste is a Forfeiture of the Copy-hold by the Common Law Voluntary permissive but negligent waste not without a Custom Per Anderson and Walmsly Noy p. 51. in Farmer and Ward 's Case Vide infra Co. Lit. 63. a. If a Copy-holder suffer the House to decay and to be wasted this is a Forfeiture 1 Rolls Abr. 508. Rastal and Turnor Stranger commits Waste But if a Stranger commit waste upon the Copy-hold without the assent of the Copy-holder himself this is not any Forfeiture of the Estate of the Copy-holder 4 Rep. 27. Clifton's Case If a Copy-holder for Life cuts down Timber Trees the Lord may take them Under-Lessee cuts down Timber Trees If Under-Lessee for years of a Copy-holder cuts down Timber it shall not be a Forfeiture of the Copy-hold Estate Stiles p. 233. Cutting Timber Trees If a Copy-holder cut down great Trees viz. Elms to repair his Copy-hold House which is in decay and employ them accordingly this is not any Forfeiture because the Law allows this to him without any Custom to warrant it M. 38 39 El. B. R. East and Harding's Case So if he cut down two great Trees for that purpose and only employ one of them yet this is not any Forfeiture for a man cannot precisely know what is sufficient ibid. But if he lets them lye and suffers them to rot this is a Forfeiture If a Copy-holder for Life cuts down great Trees this is a Forfeiture and if a Custom for so doing is alledged it is unreasonable and not good Cro Car. 220. Rockey and Higgins If a Copy-holder fell Trees it s no Forfeiture because it may be for the reparation of the House but an act afterwards as selling them may cause a Forfeiture 9 Rep. 76. Ampuattion of Top-boughs A Copy-holder by the common Law may lop off under Boughs without especial Custom but the amputation of the Top-boughs will cause the putrefaction of the whole Tree and so that is Waste and a Forfeiture Cro. El. 361. Drawbridge and Cox Dodderidge put the Question in Cornwallis's Case 227. If Tenant permit waste and after repair may the Lord enter Per Hicham it was once a Forfeiture and so remains If the Lord grant to his Copy-holder the Trees growing upon the Land and which afterwards shall grow and that it shall be lawful for the Tenant to cut and carry them away The cutting down the Trees is no Forfeiture of his Copy-hold because he had dispensed with the Forfeiture by his Grant but he cannot cut the Trees that shall grow after for as to them the Grant is void Moor n. 234. As to waste about Trees Vide sub titulo Customs If there be no Custom to the contrary Waste waste either permissive or voluntary of a Copy-holder is a Forfeiture of his Copy-hold Co. Lit. 63. a. Vide supra The manuring of Land to Hop Ground was agreed to be a Forfeiture If the Copy-holder convert part of the Land into a Piscary it s a Forfeiture Lit. Rep. 267 268. in Paston and Utbert's Case Of Forfeiture by Attainder of the Tenant Custom of the Manor was if any Copy-holder within the Manor committed any Felony and this was presented by the Homage that the Lord may take and seize the Land A Copy-holder committed Felony and this was presented by the Homage and after the Copy-holder was Indicted and by Verdict Acquitted and the Lord entred Per Cur. It s a good Custom but they delivered no Opinion whether the Lords Entry in this case was lawful though it seems the Lord is concluded and he cannot enter to which purpose there is cited a pretty Case A man was Indicted as principal for the death of J. S. and another as accessary in receiving the principal after the principal was Outlawed and the accessary hang'd and the Lord seized the Land of the accessary as Escheat Afterwards came

Copy-holder It hath been a Question when a Copy-holder bargains and sells his Copy-hold to the Lord of a Manor in Lease for years whether the Copyhold Estate was extinguished But in Hutton p. 81. it is agreed that this Copy-hold is not extinguished but that the Lord who is Lessee for years is Dominus pro tempore and may grant it by Copy de novo The Lord of a Manor demised Copy-hold Lands to three Sisters Habend to them for their Lives successive the eldest Sister married one C. after which the Lord by Indenture leased the same Land to the eldest Sister the Remainder to the Husband Remainder to the second Sister and no Agreement was made thereunto by the second Sister by Deed before or after making the said Indenture but four days after the Lease made she agreed to it in pais and then married a Husband Agreement to an Indenture by one in Remainder for Life and they claim the Land The point is if by Agreement of the second Sister her Right to the Copy-hold were extinct The Interest of the eldest Sister is gone by her acceptance of the Estate by Indenture now if the second Sister may come and claim her customary Interest Per Cur. it s no extinguishment in the second Sister and yet Judgment was against her for Per Gaudy none can take advantage of the eldest Sister's Estate being determined the Lord against his Lease cannot enter or claim and the second Sister cannot enter during the Life of the eldest Sister for her Remainder takes effect in possession after the death of her said Sister 1 Leon. p. 73. Curtis and Cottell's Case 28 Eliz. Trin. B. R. By acceptance of a new Estate of Free-hold Baron and Feme Copy-holders to them and their Heirs the Baron in consideration of mony paid by him to the Lord obtaineth an Estate of the Freehold to him and his Wife and to the Heirs of their Bodies Baron dieth having Issue the Feme enters and suffers a Recovery and his Heir enters Per Statute 11 H. 7. Per Cur. the Entry is lawful for the Copy-hold by the Acceptance of the new Estate was extinguished Cro. El. 24. Stockbridge's Case Where and how Right to a Copy-hold shall be Extinguished by Release A man makes a Surrender of his Copy-hold Land to J. S. which is not good and after J. S. is admitted he which made the Surrender releaseth to him being in possession and after enters upon him The Question was if his Entry be congeable and if by the Release by Deed the customary Right of the Copy-holder was extinct And Per Cur. it is extinct by the Release for he to whom the Release was made was Copy-holder in possession and admitted to the Tenements and therefore the Release of a customary right may enure to him and the Lord hath no prejudice for he hath received his Fine for Admittance and he to whom the Release is made is in by Title viz. by Admittance of the Lord and so this Release enures by way of extinguishment And there is great difference between transferring of an Estate and an extinguishment of a Right Diversity between the transferring of an Estate and the extinguishment of a Right But if a Copy-holder be ousted per Tort there his Release to the disseisor or other wrong doer does not transfer his Right or Bar him 1. Because there is no customary Estate upon which a Release of any customary Right may enure and then 2. It would be a prejudice to the Lord who would lose his Fines and Services Co. 4 Rep. 25. b. Kite and Queinton In Replevin bar to the Conisance That K.D. was seized of the Manor of R. in Fee and that the Tenements in which c. were customary held of the said Manor and that at such a Court a Copy was granted to the Plaintiff whereby he entred and put in his Beasts The Defendant protesting the Premisses were not customary for Plea saith That before the Plaintiffs Title J. Abbot of the Monastery of B. was seized of the Manor of R. c. and one R. T. being seized of the customary Lands in which c. in Fee at the will of the Lord the said R. surrendred to the Abbot who was possessed and occupied the said Premisses for divers years and afterwards demised the said Manor for 40 years to W. M. and then surrendred the entire Manor and Abbathy to H. 8. who granted the entire Manor to the Duke of Norfolk in Fee and he with the assent of the Termor made a Feoffment to Drury of the Manor to whom the Termor surrendred his Lease Drury dyes and it descends to his Heir who granted the Land in which c. again by Copy to Tillot for his Life who entred and put in his Beasts Demurrer The Question was if the Custom is destroyed or if Drury the Defendant may avoid his Grant by Copy Note The custumary Land was never severed from the Manor but granted with the Manor as part of it and was demisable by Copy by all the Lords of the Manor and so it remained till the 15th of Eliz. when the Defendant granted the Copy to the Plaintiff Winch Ent. 991 992. Where a Copy-hold shall be perpetually extinct or where it shall after become a Copy-hold by regrant Forfeit Escheat If a Copy-hold Estate be forfeit or escheat to the Lord or otherwise come into the Hands of the Lord if the Lord make a Lease for years or for Life or other Estate by Deed or without Deed this Land shall never after be granted again by Copy for the Custom is destroyed for that during such Estates the Land was not demised nor demisable by Copy of Court Roll So if the Lord make a Feoffment and enter for the Condition broken it shall never be granted again by Copy But if the Lord keep it in his Hands a long time or let this at will then he may re-grant it Lach p. 213. 1 Rolls Abr. 498. Downcliff and Minors So if the interruption be tortious as if the Lord be disseised and the disseisor dye seized or the Land be recovered against the Lord by false Verdict or erroneous Judgment yet after the Land recovered or the judgment reversed this is grantable again by Copy Legal Interruptions But if the Land so Forfeited or Escheated before any new Grant be extended upon a Statute or Recognizance acknowledged by the Lord or the Lords Wife hath this assigned to her in a Writ of Dower though these are impediments by acts in Law yet the interruptions are lawful and the Lands may never again be granted by Copy 4 Rep. 31. Frenches Case If Copy-holder takes a Lease for years of the Manor by this his Copy-hold is destroyed but such Lessee may re-grant the Copy-hold again to whom he will for the Land was always demised or demisable If a Copy-hold be surrendred to the Lessor of a Manor or be Forfeited to him he his Executors or Assigns may well

Lord shall have one Action and the Copy-holder another and each one shall recover Damages according to his Interest Vide Leon. 1. 272. Copy-holder dyes Lord admits a Stranger the Heir may enter and upon a re-entry maintain Trespass without Admittance Noy p. 172. Simpson and Gillion Vide Admittance For non-Admittance no Action by Surrendree Action on the Case against the Lord lyes not for non-Admittance A Copy-holder in the Eye of the Law is but Tenant at the Lords Will and if the Lord will not hold Court he hath no remedy to compel him but by order in Chancery Cro. Jac. p. 368. Ford and Hoskins No Action on the Case by a named Successor By Surrendror Surrendror may have an Action on the Case for not admitting but not the Surrendree 2 Keb. 357. Quaere Remedy in faux Judgment The Demandant in a Pleint in nature of a real Action recovereth the Land erroneously with remedy for the party grieved for he cannot have the Kings Writ of faux Judgment in respect of the baseness of the Estate and Tenure being in the Eye of the Law but a Tenant at Will and the Freehold being in another yet he shall have Petition to the Lord in nature of a Writ of faux Judgment and therein assign Errors and have remedy according to Law Co. Lit. 60. And if there be cause the Judgment may be reversed Assise Tenant by Copy shall not have Assise against his Lord as Tenant in ancient Demesn shall have because he hath no Frank-Tenement 4 Rep. 21. but he shall be relieved in Equity Tothil p. 108. The Copy-holders Actions and Remedies against Strangers and where A man grants all the Coals and Coal-Mines within a Manor and parcel was Copy-hold for Life to J. S. Where Copy-holder shall have Trover for Coals digged out of his Copy-hold Land Lessee enters into the Copy-hold and digs a new Pit in the Copy-hold Land during the Life of the Copy-holder and takes the Coals and converts them c. And Lessee of the Coal-Mine brought Trover against the Lessor Per Curiam he may do it for when the Lessor or Lessee of the Coals or a Stranger enters and digs the Coals out of the Pits these belong to the Lessee and if any one else take the Coals he shall have Trover Jones Rep. 243. Player and Roberts Lessee of a Copy-holder for a year Ejectment shall maintain an Ejectione Firmae for in as much as his Term is warranted by Law by force of the general Custom of the Realm it is but reason if he be ejected that he shall have Ejectione Firmae and it is a speedy course for a Copy-holder to have the possession of the Land against a Stranger 4 Rep. 26. As to the Declaration in Ejectment Vide Tit. Declaration In Cro. El. p. 224. It is said to be adjudged Ejectment Per tot Cur. That an Ejectione Firmae doth not lye of a Copy-hold Estate But it was agreed That an Ejectione Firmae doth lye of a Lease made by a Copy-holder but not of a Demise made by the Lord of a Copy-hold by Copy of Court Roll Cole and Wall 's Case A Copy-holder had Licence from his Lord to let his Land for 21 years he lets it to the Plaintiff for three years who entred and being Ejected brought Ejectione Firmae Ejectment by Lessee upon a Lease not warranted good against a Stranger Per Cur. he may maintain this Action at Common Law for it is a good Lease between the Pa●●●s and against all others but the Lord and as this Case is it is good against him because it is done by his Licence and it is a good Lease and well warranted by the Licence Cro. El. 535. Goodwin and Longhurst A Copy-holder made a Lease for one year excepting one day which was warranted by the Custom Lessee being ousted by a Stranger brings Ejectione Firmae it well lyes and if there were not any Custom yet it shall be good against all but him who had the Inheritance and Freehold So if a Lessee for Will at the Common Law had made a Lease for years for the Tenant at Will is only a Disseisor and the Lease is good against him Cro. Trin. 41 El. p. 676. Spark's Case So 717. Erish's Case Moor n. 709. Stoner and Gibson Ejectment by the Heir without Admittance to presentment If customary Lands do descend to the younger Son by Custom and he enters and leaseth to another who takes the Profits and after is Ejected he shall have an Ejectione Firmae without any Admittance of his Lessor or Presentment that he is Heir 1 Leon. p. 100. Rumny and Eves n. 128. If a Copy-holder had Common by Prescription in the Waste of the Lord and the Lord stores the Waste with Conies every Copy-holder may have Action on the Case against the Lord averring That by this the Common is impaired 1 Rolls Abr. 106. Clayton and Sir Jerom Horsey Trespass for Beasts depasturing his Common by every Commoner Copy-holder prescribes to have Common in the Waste of the Lord and brings Trespass on the Case against a Stranger for his Beasts depasturing on the Common there The Question was whether this Action lyes for 15 H. 7.12 it s agreed a Commoner cannot maintain an Action of Trespass nor no other but the Owner of the Soyl 12 H. 8.2 And the Commoner hath no right till he hath taken it by the mouth of his Beasts and the Damage is to the Tenant of the Land and then every other Commoner may have Action of Trespass and so the Stranger shall be infinitely punishable Per Coke If a Commoner may distrain Damage feasant doing Damage which proves lie hath wrong then by the same reason if the Beasts are gone before his coming he may have Action on the Case otherwise one that hath many Beasts may destroy the Common in a night And it s not like a Nusance for that is Publick and may be punished in a Leet But the other is private to the Commoners and cannot be punished in another course he cited one Whitehand's Case Many Copy-holders prescribe to have the Loppings and Toppings of Pollards the Lord cuts them every Copy-holder may have his Action and also Hill 5. Jac. Rot. 1427. Geo. England's Case and Warburton of the same Opinion 2 Brownl p. 146. Crogate and Morris If a Copy-holder by the Custom of a Manor had used to have Common for all his Beasts Action on the Case for digging Turffs on the Common Levant and Couchant upon his customary Tenements in a certain parcel of the Manor and a Stranger digs Turffs there and takes them away by which his Common is impaired Action on the Case lyes declaring That the Defendant digged so many Turffs there and then with his Horses and Carts Herbam tunc ibid crescen ' predict ambulando conculcando Declaration from the place aforesaid minus rite ceperit abcarriavit

per quod quer ' communiam suam predict pro averiis suis c. in tam amplo beneficiali modo prout antea habuit c. habere non potuit This is a good Declaration though the Commoner cannot have any Damage for the taking and carrying away the Turffs yet the coming on the Land with Horse and Carts is a prejudice to the Common and the per quod the Common is impaired is the cause of Action and the carrying away a means to impair it 1 Rolls Abr. 89. Terry and Goodier and good tho' Damages were entire Action shall be brought in a Copy-holder Lunaticks name for though the custody of the Land was granted to one by the Lord yet no Interest was gained by this commitment and the Lord hath not power over the Lunaticks Lands without a Custom Hobart p. 215 216. Cox and Darson Trespass Quare clausum fregit Copy-holder of Under-Wood without the Soil shall have Trespass Quare clausum fregit Moor n. 480. Account for Profits Account lies not for an Heir Copy-holder for the Profits of his Copy-hold Lands taken during his non-Age where the Defendant hath not entred and taken the Profits as Prochein Amy but claims by Custom and Grant of the Lord to the Use of the Assignee which Custom is good 1 Leon. p. 226. n. 356. Anonymus Faux Judgment Writ of faux Judgment lies not for a Copy-holder Vide supra Writ of Right Close Writ of Right Close lies not for a Copy-holder 4 Rep. 21. Avowry for Rent by Lessee of a Copy-holder Lessee for years of a Manor distrains a Copy-holder for Rent he Replevins Lessee Avows Per Curiam Avowry may be made for the Rent of a Copy-holder in the Kings-Bench and there is difference between an Ejectione Firmae and this Case For the Ejectione Firmae is brought for the Copy-hold it self But this Avowry is for Rent due to the Lord which is a duty at the Common Law and therefore an Avowry may well be for it Cro. El. p. 524. Laughter and Humphry A Copy-holder in Fee by Licence made a Lease for 21 years by Indenture rendring Rent Covenant by Assignee of a Reversion wherein the Lessee Covenants for himself his Executors and Assigns That he will erect a c. The Lessor surrendred to the Use of the Plaintiff and his Heirs who was admitted accordingly and the Plaintiff as Assignee brings his Action of Covenant Whether the Assignee may maintain this Action by the Common Law or by the Statute 32 H. 8. Cap. 34. was the Question for the Defendant demurred upon the Declaration it was adjourned in Cro. Car. 24. Plat and Plummer But it seems by 1 Keb. 356. Baker and Berisford's Case That the Assignee is not within this Statute to have a Covenant Action of Debt doth not lye for Arrearages of Copy Rents for the Stat. of 32 H. 8. Action of Debt for Rent does not extend to them but to Rents out of Free Land Yelv. p. 135. Appleton and Doily And so Executors shall not have Debt for Arreages of such Rents due in the Life-time of the Testator The Lord of a Manor is and Fines No Remedy for Fines Rents c. after vendition for Admittances and Copy-hold Rents are Arrear and then he sells the Manor he is without Remedy both in Law and Equity He hath deprived himself of the Remedy by his own act viz. the vendition 1 Rolls Abr. 374. Serjeant Hitcham and Finch Copy-holder for Life becomes Lunatick A. Action of Trover to be brought in the Lunaticks name he being a Copy-holder sows the Land The Lord grants the custody of the Lunatick to B. A. takes the Corn to the Use of the Lunatick B. Brought Trover in his own name it s ill brought It ought to be brought in the Lunaticks name and not in the name of the Committee Noy p. 27. Cox and Dawson Covenant by Rent Custom is when a Copy-holder dies seized of Copy-hold Lands or Rent That his Wife shall have the one moiety and his Issues the other moiety A. B. so seized takes Mary to Wife and they have Issue John A. B. dies so that Mary is seized of the moiety for her Life and John of the other moiety in Fee and of the first moiety as his Reversion Mary and John her Son make a Lease to J. B. for twenty one years rendring fifty pounds Rent to Mary and fifty pounds to John and after the death of Mary one hundred pounds to John John marries Margaret they have Issue three Sons John dies so that a fourth part comes to his Wife and the other fourth part to his three Sons Rent is behind Margaret brought Debt on Covenant for the Rent Per Curiam it was well brought by her sole Joynder in Action without joyning Mary with her Tenant in Commonn shall joyn in Action so long as the privity of Contract remains but when the privity is determined as it is here they may sever and such Contract shall ensue the nature of the Land and also there is a vesting by Custom and express several Reservations 2 Siderfin p. 9. Baker and Berisford CAP. XXX Of Copy-holders being Impleaded and Impleadable in the Lords Court Vide supra Tit. Customs COpy-hold Lands are as the Demesns of the Manor and are the Lords Freehold and therefore are not impleadable but in the Lords Court Croke Jac. 559. Pymmock and Hilder One recovered certain Copyhold Lands in the Court of the Lord of the Manor by Plaint in the nature of a Writ of Right A Precept cannot be made and awarded out of the Court to execute the said Recovery Posse Manerij and to put him who recovered into possession with the Posse Manerij for force in such cases is not justifiable but by command out of the Kings Courts 3 Leon. 99. A Woman recovered Dower of a Copy-hold within the Manor and 40 l. Damages 40 l. Damages recovered yet no Execution or remedy but by Petition and she brought Debt for the Damages in B.R. Per Cur. it lyes not because the Court Baron cannot hold Plea nor award Execution of 40 l. Damages though the Damages were there well assessed and because no Writ of Error or Faux Judgment lyes upon such a Recovery of a Copy-hold but only a Petition to the Lord of a Manor so that Copy-hold Plaints are not within the Jurisdiction of this Court of Kings-Bench Moor n. 559. Shaw and Tompson If an erroneous Judgment be given in a Copy-hold Court of a common Lord in an Action in nature of a Formedon a Bill may be exhibited in Chancery Faux Judgment how relieved in nature of a Faux Judgment to reverse this Pateshall's Case in Scaccario 1 Rolls Abr. 373. and Co. on Lit. p. 60. a. He cannot have the Kings Writ of false Judgment in respect of the baseness of the Estate and Tenure being in the Eye of the Law but a

alledge this as a Grant How a Copy-holder shall plead in making Title to a Copy-hold and this the Law allows for avoiding an inconvenience which will otherwise happen for if the Copy-holder in Pleading shall be put to shew the full Grant either it was before the time of memory and then it is not pleadable or within time of memory and then the Custom fails Admittance pleaded as a Grant and for this cause the Law hath allowed the Copy-holder in Pleading to alledge any Admittance upon a Descent or upon a Surrender as a Grant and yet he may if he will alledge the Admittance of his Ancestor as a Grant and shew the Descent to himself and that he entred and good without any Admittance of him but the Heir cannot plead That his Father was seized in Fee at the Will of the Lord by Copy of Court Roll of such a Manor according to the Custom of the Manor and that he died seized and that it descended to him for in truth such an Interest is but a particular Interest at Will in judgment of Law although it is descendible by the Custom for he is Tenant at Will of the Lord according to the Custom of the Manor 4 Rep. 22. Brown's Case If one Surrender to the intent that the Lord shall grant it to another and he admitts him it was adjuded good yet he ought to plead it as a Grant Lit. Rep. 175. Tenant in Dower may Grant a Copy-hold in Reversion which shall be good Grant of Copy-hold Land in Reversion must be pleaded as a Grant in Reversion and not as a Grant in possession nor by a per nomen though not executed in the Life of Tenant in Dower But then it must be pleaded as a Grant in Reversion and not as a Grant in Possession therefore in Gray's Case Cro. El. p. 661 662. It was there pleaded That he granted Tenementa praedicta per nomen of a Messuage which A. P. held for Life and Per Cur. it s an uncurable Fault for it is not alledged that he granted the Tenement in Reversion and the per nomen will not help Averment del ' v●e Tenant by curtesie of Copy-hold brings Ejectment or Action it must appear that he is in Life or else he cannot have Judgment 1 Anderson p. 292. Ewer and Astwick Where in Pleading the Commencement of the. Estate must be shewn or by whom granted or not In matter of Conveyance to a Title need not shew the Conveyance Replevin the Plaintiff in bar to the Avowry shews that the Land was Copy-hold Land grantable in possession or reversion for Life or in Fee and that the Lord granted the Reversion to him after the death of W. who was Tenant pur vie and shews the death of W. whereby he entred And demurred because he did not shew the beginning of W. his Estate nor by whom W. had the Estate granted him Per. Cur. this is no cause of Demurrer because it is not the Plaintiffs Title but matter of Conveyance thereunto Cro. Jac. 52. Lodge and Fry Admittance of the last Heir to be shewed instead of an ancient Grant If one pleads Seisin of a Copy-holder in Fee and claims under him he ought to shew of whose Grant as he ought to shew of any other particular Estate but perhaps that is so ancient that it cannot be shewn who was the first Grantee yet it was held sufficient to shew the Admittance of the last Heir which is in nature of a Grant and may be pleaded by way of Grant Cro. Jac. 103. Pyster and Hembling In Trespass the Defendant justifies he confesseth the Close to be Copy-hold Land but pleads That long time before it was parcel of the Manor of c. and that long before the supposed Trespass one Pole and M. his Wife was Lord of the Manor in right of his Wife for Life remainder to Stephen in Tayl and he made a Lease of this Land to the Defendant it s an ill Plea because the Defendant hath not shewed as he ought how Pole and his Wife came to this Estate for Life the remainder over they ought to shew how this particular Estate hath its commencement they claiming a derivative Estate from Pole and his Wife for years 3 Bulstr 281. Sandford and Stephens None may entitle himself to any Copy-hold but he ought to shew a Grant thereof In Trespass the Plaintiff in his Rejoynder intitles himself because the place where is customary Land parcel of such a Manor whereof J. S. is seized in Fee and demisable by Copy at Will in Fee and that J. N. was seized in Fee by Copy c. and dyed seized so as it descended to two Daughters as Heirs of J. N. and that at such a Court Dominus concessit eis extra manus suas c. Habend tenend Tenementa praedicta to the said Daughters and their Heirs whereby they were seized in Fee and afterwards demised to the Plaintiff for years The Plaintiff hath not made a good Title and he shewing such an one was seized in Fee without shewing the Grant thereof Per Cur. it s not good Cro. Car. 190. Shepherd's Case yet it was but default of form and Issue for the Plaintiff being found it is a Jeofail Pleading Custom or Prescription A Copy-holder in Pleading need not alledge a Custom to make a Surrender for that is the Custom of all England A Copy-holder need not alledge a Custom to make a Lease for a year It must be pleaded that he used to do it It is not sufficient to alledge a Custom that one might do such an Act but that he used to do it as to alledge dimissibile and dimissum therefore in Brown and Foster's Case the Defendant avows in Replevin for Damage feasant the Plaintiff makes Title as Copy-holder and shews that within the Manor of A. time whereof c. Talis habebatur habetur consuetudo c. That any Copy-holder may surrender into the Hands of two Customary Tenants c. this is not well pleaded for it is pleaded by Usage and Custom but he doth not plead that ever it was put in ure in that manner which ought to be alledged as in Sir William Hatton's Case where it was pleaded Quod Talis habebatur consuetudo within a Manor Quod licebit Seneschall● to impose a Fine c. But in the principal Case the not naming the Steward made the Avowry ill and then Per Cur. the Avowry being ill although the bar to the Avowry were ill Not naming the Steward in the Avowry ill yet he cannot have return Cro. p. 37. El. 392. Brown and Foster Copy-holder pleads Quod infra Manerium praed talis habetur nec non a toto tempore cujus contrarij memoria hominum non existit habebatur consuetudo videl quod quilibet tenens custumar ' praedict tenementa c. hath used to have Common in such a place parcel of the Manor Question was if the