Custodie of his Body It was the opinion of the Justices That the Action did not lie But it was agreed in that Case That an Ejectione firme lieth upon a Demise of Copy-hold-lands by Lease for years by the Copy-holder himself but not upon a Demise by the Lord of the Copy-hold Note It was Resolved by the Justices Coke 4. part 26. in Melwichâ—'s Case M. 8 Jac. in Câ— B. Craneford and Freshwater's Case acc That the Lessee of a Copy-holder for a year may maintain an Ejectione firme for inasmuch as his Term is warranted by the Law by force of the general Custome of the Realm it is but reason that H. 39 Eliz. Cro. 1. part Goodwin and Langhurst's Case acc if he be ejected he should have an Ejectione firme for it is a speedy Course for a Copy-holder to gain the possession of the Land against a Stranger being no more then what right requires to be yielded him for the Recovery of his Estate SECT XXI What Statutes and Acts of Parliament do extend to Copy-holds and Copy-hold-estates what not SOme things concerning this Division being spoken of in the former part of this Treatise and some particular Statutes there being mentioned within which Copy-holds are included and in what not I shall refer the Reader thereunto adding onely a few Cases upon some particular Acts not therein mentioned with the Authorities and Resolutions of the Justices therein And as concerning within what Statutes Copy-holds are I shall take and relie upon the general Rule Coke 3. part Heydon's Case which is put in Sir Edward Coke's 3. part of his Reports in Heydon's Case viz. When a Statute or Act of Parliament doth alter the Service Tenure Interest of the Estate or other thing in prejudice of the Lord or of the Custome of the Manor or in prejudice of the Tenant there the general words of such Statute or Act of Parliament do not extend to Copy-holds or Copy-hold-estates But when the Statute or Act of Parliament is generally made for the good of the Commonweal and no prejudice can come thereby by alteration of any Service Tenure or Interest or Custome used within the Manor there Copy-holds and Copy-hold-estates are within the purview of such Statutes or Acts. Proofs It was Resolved by all the Justices 6 Jac. in Co. B. Coke Select Cases 27 28. That no Tenure shall pay for a reasonable Aid to make the eldest Son Knight or to marry the eldest Daughter but Tenure by Knight's-Service or Tenure in Littl. 16. sect 36. Socage Now Littleton saith that all Tenures are either Knight's-Service or Socage And the Statute of Westm 1. cap. 36. of reasonable Aid extends onely to such Tenures The Question then is Whether a Copy-hold-Tenure be within that Statute I shall not determine the Question for that I do not find it moved in any Book of the Common Law But although I humbly conceive Copy-holds be within the general words of Mr. Littleton all Tenures in Socage yet that the said Statute of Westm 1. cap. 36. doth not extend to Copy-holds Quere of it The Statute of Westm 2. de Donis conditionalibus Statute Westm 2. de Donis I conceive doth not extend to Copy-holds within the general words thereof The words of the Statute are of Gifts per Chartam datis and Copy-holds do not pass by Deeds but by Surrenders But yet it is conceived that although they be not within the general Words of the Statute yet they are within the Equity of the said Statute if there be a Custome to warrant such Estates The Case was A Copy-holder in Fee H. 37 Eliz. in Co. B. Church and Wyatt's Case Moore 637. surrendred his Copy-hold-lands to the Life of his Will and having a Daughter born and his Wife with Child he devised part of his said Lands to his Son or Daughter which his Wife went with Haeredibus suis legitimè procreatis and the residue thereof he devised to his Daughter born to have to her and the fruit of her body One Point in this Case was What Estate the Daughter born had in the said copy-hold-Copy-hold-lands if in Tail or not It was said It was a Fee-tail in the Daughter born But it was much doubted if it was an Estate within the said Statute de Donis c. But in that Case it was agreed That Copy-hold might be entailed by Custome co-operating with the said Statute and if not within the words yet within the Equity of the said Statute The Statute of Praerogativa Regis cap. Stat. Praerogat Regis cap. 9 10. Co. 8. part 170. in Towerson's Case Co. 4. part 127. in Beverly's Case 9 and 10. gives the Lands of Idiots natural to the King he finding them convenient Maintenance out of the Profits thereof But if the Idiot hath Copy-hold-lands discended unto him the King shall not have the Wardship of those Lands therewith out of the Profits thereof to maintain the Idiot because the same would be prejudicial to the Lord of the Manor of whom the Lands are holden by Copy But yet all Alienations made by an Idiot of his Copy-hold-lands after Office found shall be avoided by the King Copy-hold-lands are not within the Stat. West 2. cap. 20. Statute of Westm 2. cap. 20. of Executions For if a Judgment be had in a Court of Record against a Copy-holder for Debt and Dammages although the Plaintiff may have Execution by Fieri facias against his Goods or a Capias against his Body yet he cannot have Execution of the moyetie of his Copy-hold-lands by Elegit for that Copy-hold-lands are not within that Statute And so it is if a Statute-Merchant or Staple be acknowledged by a Copy-holder for the payment of Money at a day certain which is not payed his Copy-hold-lands are not extendable for the same And the reason of these Cases is because no person can come to Copy-holds but by Admittance of the Lord and the Lord should thereby lose his Fine which is due upon Admittance if the party might have the Lands upon Extent delivered unto him If Tenant by the Curtesie or Lessee Pasc 12 Eliz in Co. B. Moore 94. for years be of a Manor and Copy-holds were in his hands by Forfeiture or other determination and he bindeth himself in a Statute and afterwards he deviseth the Copy-hold again the Copy-hold shall be liable to the Statute But if a Copy-holder bindeth himself in a Statute-Merchant or Staple his copy-hold-Copy-hold-lands shall not be extended upon the said Statute because therein he hath but an Estate at will Copy-hold-lands are not within the Statute Stat. 31 H. 8. cap. 13. of 31 H. 8. cap. 13. of Monasteries The Guardians of the Colledge of Otlery Lords of a Manor granted M. 25 26 Eliz. in the Exchequer Leon. 1. part 4. Lands for 3 Lives by Copy according to the Custome of the Manor afterwards in 30 H. 8. they leased the Lands to J S rendring
viz. Ad hanc Curiam venit A de B sursumreddidit in manus Domini c. unum Messuaglum c. ad usum C de D Haeredum suorum vel Haeredum de corpore suo exeunt Habendum sibi Haeredibus de corpore suo exeunt c. By which it appeareth to be the opinion of Mr. Littleton that an Estate may and might be of Copy-hold-lands And herewith agreeth the opinion of Mr. Plowden in his Commentaries in Morgan and Manxell's Case But note that the opinion of Mr. Littleton is That there must be a Custome of the Manor to enable such Estates of Copy-hold-lands It is said in Coke 3. part in Heydon's Case That where an Act of Parliament doth alter the Service Tenure or Interest of the Estate either in prejudice of the Lord or of the Custome of the Manor or in prejudice of the Tenants there such an Act of Parliament doth not extend to Copy-holds And therefore the Statute of Westm 2. de Donis because it extendeth to the Alteration of the Service and Tenure of the Land and is prejudicial to the Lord of the Manor doth not extend to Copy-holds But in that Case it is agreed That by a special Custome Lands might be entailed for that it might be that upon the creation of the Manors Lands were given by Lords of Manors to hold by their Tenants by particular Services and for particular Uses viz. to some to them and their Heirs in Fee-simple to some others to hold to them and the Heirs of their bodies begotten and to some others for particular Estates as for life c. and such Estates having continued in their Issues time out of mind Custome hath now enabled such Estates to be of Copy-holds in tail and although they have and enjoy such their Estates be it either Fee-simple or Fee-tail yet it is but secundùm Consuetudinem Manerii and therefore and for these Reasons and causes although that Copy-hold be not or could not be entailed within the general words of the Statute de Donis c. yet by Custome time out of mind used they say that Copy-holds may be entailed 36 Eliz. in the King's Bench it was Adjudged That where the Custome of the Manor was that Lands might be granted unto any in Fee-simple in such case a Grant of Lands unto a man and the Heirs of his bodie was within the Custome For a Custome which extendeth to the greater will extend to the lesser Estate Tenant in tail of a Copy-hold surrendred M. 15 Jac. Lee and Brown's Case Poph. 128. the same into the hands of the Lord to the Use of J S c. In that Case 2 Questions did arise 1. If Copy-holds were within the Statute de Donis c. 2. Whether the Tail might be cut off by a Surrender The Court doubted of the first Point but the better opinion seemed to be That the Statute co-operating with the Custome they might be entailed A Copy-holder had Issue 3 Sons A H. 31 Eliz. B. R. Bullein and Graunâ—'s Case Leon. 1. part 174. B and C and surrendred his copy-hold-Copy-hold-lands to the Use of his last Will and thereby declared the same to be to the Use of his Wife for life the Remainder to B his second Son in tail and afterwards to A in Fee It was a Question in this Case if B had a Fee-simple conditional in the Lands or an estate-Estate-tail For if a conditional Fee then a Remainder over of it could not be limited It was the opinion of Wray Chief Justice That it was an Estate-tail in B and not a Fee conditional and that Customary Lands might be granted in tail A Surrender of Copy-hold-lands was H. 34 Eliz. B. R. rot 29â—â— Stanton and Barney's Case made within the Manor of Stevenson to the Use of J S and the Heirs of his body and after Issue he surrendred the Lands unto another It was agreed by all the Justices That it was a Fee-simple conditional at the Common Law and after Issue that he might alien the Lands A Copy-holder in Fee of the Manor M. 36 Eliz. B. R. Gravenor and Brook's Case Poph. 34. of Fairchilds and Preachers 3 H. 8. surrendred his copy-hold-Copy-hold-lands to the Use of his eldest Daughter for life the Remainder to the eldest Son of the said Daughter and the Heirs-males of his body the Remainder to the right Heirs of A the Copy-holder in Fee In this Case it was said That an Estate in Tail could not be of copy-hold-Copy-hold-lands It was the opinion of Fenner and Popham That by Equity of the Statute de Donis an estate-Estate-tail might be of Copy-hold-lands though not otherwise Now on the other side That Copy-hold-lands cannot be entailed nor are within the Statute de Donis c. see these Cases and Resolutions following H. 35 Eliz. in Co. B. it was Resolved by all the Justices that Copy-holds were H. 35 Eliz. in Co. B. Pitts and Huckley's Case not within the Statute of Westm 2. de Donis For if they were within that Statute then the Lord should not enter nor take advantage of the Forfeiture of the Copy-hold for Felony the contrary of which was Resolved in Borneford and Sir John Packington's Case but the Donor and the Services should be done to the Donor and not to the Lord of the Manor which is against the nature of a Copy-hold-Tenure The Case was That a Copy-holder Tr. 18 Jac. in Co. B. Royden and Moulster's Case Cro. 3. part 32 33. Godb. 367. acc surrendred to the Use of one in Tail there being no Custome to warrant such Surrender In this Case the Question was whether a Copy-hold might be entailed within the Statute de Donis It was holden by all the Justices That it could not be entailed within the Statute and that for divers causes 1. Because it is not within the Letter of the Statute which speaks onely de Tenement is per Chartam datis and Copy-holds cannot pass by Deed but by Surrender onely as is agreed on all sides 2. Because they are not within the meaning of the Statute because that before 7 E. 4. 19. they were not of any account in Law being onely Estates at will of the Lord secundùm Consuetudinem Manerii 3. Because the said Statute de Donis provides onely against those who might make Disinherison by Fine or Recovery which a Copy-holder there could not doe or make because that then upon such Grants in Tail the Reversion should be left in themselves which could not be being to the prejudice of the Lord of the Manor And also 4. because it would be very mischievous because then there should be no means to dock or cut off such Entails common Recoveries and Fines not being then in use unless there were a special Custome to that purpose Having thus declared and made mention of the several Cases and Resolutions in this much-controverted Point Whether Copy-hold may be entailed within the said Statute de Donis
Differences which arise betwixt Copy-holders A Copy-holder doth surrender his Copy-hold-lands H. 25 Eliz. in B. R. Leon 1. part 2. to A to hold the Lands till he hath levied the summe of 100 l. upon trust that afterwards he shall surrender to the Use of B A levies the money and being required to make the surrender to B he refuseth to doe it whereupon B exhibits his Bill to the Lord in the Court of the Manor The Lord there makes a Decree that A make the Surrender to B which he again refuseth to doe and thereupon the Lord seizeth the Lands and afterwards admits B to the same It was the opinion of the whole Court in this Case That both the Seizure of the Lord and his Admittance of B were lawfull because the Lord in such Cases of Equity to execute Trusts is Chancellour in his own Court If a false Judgment be given in a Vid. 14 H. 4. 34. Court-Baron by the Steward against a Copy-holder the Copy-holder in such case shall not have either a Writ of Errour or a Writ of False Judgment but he may sue in the Court of the Lord by Bill to be relieved against such Judgment and the Lord as Chancellour may give him Relief therein and shall restore the Land to the party upon the false Judgment given by the Steward and Restitution made to the Copy-holder SECT XV. Of Surrenders upon Conditions and where such Surrenders shall be good where not Proofs A Copy-holder in Fee surrendred out P. 31 Eliz. Co. 4. part Kite and Queinton's Case of Court his Copy-hold-lands to the Use of another and his Heirs upon Condition At the next Court the Surrender was presented but in the Presentment the Condition was omitted He to whose Use the Surrender was made being dead the Lord admitted his Heir It was Resolved in this Case That the Presentment of the Surrender was void because it was not made in such manner as the Surrender was made But if the Conditional Surrender had been presented it had beed good although it was not entred into the Court-Roll A Copy-holder surrendred his Copy-hold Tr. 2 Jac. B. R. Cro. 2. part Hall Shardbrook's Case upon Condition and afterwards by Deed he released the Condition Resolved it was good without a Surrender for that a Condition or a Right cannot properly be said to be determined by a Surrender but it may be by a Release The Case was Grandfather Father M. 15 E. 3. 13. and Son The Grandfather died The Father assigned Dower to the Grandmother being his Mother who surrendred it back to the Father paying 10 l. per annum The Father died his Wife brought Dower against the Son and recovered because the Father had the Fee and Freehold conjoyned in the life of the Grandmother by the Surrender It was Resolved in this Case That when the Wife of the Father doth recover Dower she shall pay to the Grandmother so much Rent as doth belong to her proportion in Dower And in this Case it was holden That although the Estate of a man be Conditional and defeasible upon a bad Title yet the Wife shall not be ousted of her Dower untill the Conditional or defeasible Title be defeated And where Husband and Wife are Tenants for life and surrender to him in the Reversion the Wife of him in the Reversion shall be endowed and yet the Surrender is but Conditional for if the Wife of the Tenant for life overliveth her Husband the Surrender is defeasible à fortiori in case where it is not defeasible as in this Case And it was said in case of a Surrender of Copy-hold-land where it was Conditional the Wife is dowable of it if the Condition do not determine the Estate in the life-time of the Husband But a Feme is not dowable of Copy-hold but by Custome of the Manor H. 27 Eliz. Cro. 3. part 68. Bright and Hubbard's Case A Copy-holder devised his Lands to his Wife for life and that she should sell the Lands for the payment of his Debts and surrendred to the Use of his Will The Copy-holder died His Wife surrendred the Land upon Condition to pay 12 l. It was Adjudged It was a good Surrender upon the Condition and that it was a good Sale made by her The Father Copy-holder in Fee surrendred Tr. 33 Eliz. Cro. 1. part Symonds and Lawnâ—'s Case his Copy-hold-lands to the Use of his Son in Fee upon Condition to perform Covenants in an Indenture The Son after Admittance surrendred to J S upon Condition that if the Son pay 10 l. the Surrender to be void The Son neither pays the 10 l. nor performs the Covenants in the Indenture The Father enters Resolved That by the Entry of the Father both the Surrenders were avoided and there the Son might well enter after the death of his Father and the Surrender made by him to J S. If a Copy-holder doth surrender his 33 Eliz. Co. 4. part Westwick's Case Lands to the Use of J S and his Heirs absolutely and the Lord admits the Tenant upon Condition it is void for that after Admittance the Tenant is in by him who made the Surrender not by the Lord. The Custome was That a Copy-holder might out of Court surrender to the Tr. 28 Eliz. in B. R. Cro. 1. part 〈◊〉 dett's Case Use of a Stranger in Fee The Lord of the Manor made J his Steward ad exequendum per se or his sufficient Deputy who made A his Deputy pro hac vice to take a Surrender of Husband and Wife the Remainder in Fee The Deputation was farther viz. Et ulteriùs faciendum quantum in me est A took a Surrender of the Husband and Wife upon Condition which Condition was afterwards peformed and executed Resolved in this Case That although the authority to take the Surrender was absolute and to be without a Condition yet when A took it upon a Condition to be performed it was a good Surrender made to him by reason of the words in the Deputation Et ulteriùs faciendum c. A Woman Copy-holder durante Viduitate P. 39 Eliz. B. R. Oland and Barwick's Case Cro. 1. part acc sowed the Land and before Severance of the Corn she took Husband Resolved That although the Estate of the Wife was incertain and determined by the Limitation and not by any Condition either in Fact or in Law that the Lord should have the Corn sowed upon the Lands A Copy-holder in Fee of Lands discendable in Borough-English had 3 Sons H. 2 Jac. B. R. Cro. 2. part Curâ—ies and Wolverston's Case and surrendred to the Use of his Will and thereby devised his Lands to his middle Son in Fee upon Condition to pay to his 4 Daughters to every of them 20 l. at their full age The eldest Son had Issue 2 Daughters and died The middle Son is admitted and doth not pay the Daughters their Summs at their full ages The youngest Son
reserved cannot be granted by Copy of Court-Roll by the Lord of the Manor nor can they be holden by any Service to be done for them But Advowsons appendants Commons appendants and such things as are parcell of a Manor and which have Continuance may be granted by the Lord of the Manor to be holden by Copies of Court-Roll according to the Custome of the Manor In Trespass for cutting down of Under-woods M. 38 Eliz. B. R. Cro. 1. part Hoe and Taylor 's Case the Question was Whether Under-woods might be granted by Copy of Court-Roll for that by such Grant or Lease the Soil passeth not But it was Resolved That Under-woods are a thing of Inheritance and perpetuity which may have Continuance for ever for after they are once cut they will grow again ex stipitibus and so they may be well granted by Copy In Trover and Conversion of 20 Loads P. 43 Eliz. B. R. Sands and Darcie's Case Cro. 1. part acc of Tith-Hay the onely Question was Whether Tithes were grantable by Copy It was objected they were not because it is against the nature of Tithes and none could have a property in them before the Council of Lateran and therefore it was impossible to have any Custome so to grant them But it was Resolved That they might be granted by Copy if there had been a Custome time out of mind so to grant them One Manor may be holden of another 39 H. 6. 9. b. Vid. M. 11 Jac. Moore and Goodgreave's Case Cro. 2. part Coke 11. part Sir Henry Nevil's Case M. 37 Eliz. B. R. Sir John Bourn's Case acc Manor and may be demiseable by Copy of Court-Roll and there may be Customary Tenants according to the Custome of the Manor and so it was said That a Market or a Fair although they are things of Priviledge and Liberty onely yet because they might be appendant unto or parcel of a Manor or used with a Manor and Lands that an Estate might be granted of them by Copy of Court-Roll SECT XVIII What Acts or things are inseparable and must be done by the Copy-holder himself and what acts and where may be done by his Attorney A Copy-holder notwithstanding that generally and according to the Custome of the Manor he hath an Estate of Inheritance in his Copy-hold-lands viz. secundùm Consuetudinem Manerii yet it hath this Qualification that it is ad voluntatem Domini and in that respect upon the Original Grants of such Estates the Lords of Manors did reserve unto themselves certain Duties and Services and Suits to be done by their Copy-holders some of which were so inseparable to the person of the Copy-holder that they could not be done by any other person others were such as concerned and had respect both to the Lord for his good and the good of the Manor as those which concerned the particular good of the Copy-holders themselves or the Lands which they held of the Lord. The principal Dutie inseparably to be done to the person of the Lord and by his Copy-holder is his doing of Fealty Co. 9. part in Comb's Case which upon every Admittance he is to doe to the Lord for that is especially mentioned in the Copy granted by the Lord in these words viz. Dat. Domino pro Fine fecit Domino fidelitatem and Fealty cannot be done but in person and not by an Attorney And although as Mr. Littleton saith Fealty may be taken by the Steward of the Court of the Lord of the Manor yet it is done to the Lord himself and it must be done by the Copy-holder himself in person A Copy-holder may take an Estate in the Copy-hold by the Surrender of another Copy-holder into the hands of two Tenants of the Manor by Custome as before is declared But then this Surrender must be presented in Court and he to whose Use the Surrender was made must personally appear in Court and be there admitted to the Land and he cannot be admitted by Attorney The Suit and Service which is to be done in the Court of the Lord by his Copy-holder must be done in person and not by another for him and it is to be done upon his Oath and a man cannot swear by Attorney and therefore he cannot make an Attorney to doe his Suit and Service but the same must be done by him in person Again If a Copy-holder upon Notice given him of the special day of holding the Lord's Court and being summoned to appear and to doe his Suit and Service shall wilfully neglect or refuse to appear and doe his Suit it is a Forfeiture of his Copy-hold and therefore such Suits and Services cannot be done by Attorney but in proper person A Copy-holder of a Manor of the Earl Tr. 28 Eliz. in B. R. the Earl of Arundel's Case Leon. 1. part 36. of Arundel did surrender his Lands to the Use of his Will and thereby devised them to his youngest Son and his Heirs who being in Prison made a Letter of Attorney to J D to pray to be admitted to the Land for his Use and after such Admittance to surrender the same Lands to the Use of J S and his Heirs to whom he had sold it for the payment of his Debts who came into Court accordingly and prayed to be admitted and make a Surrender of the Land to J S all which was done In this Case it was Resolved by the Justices That it was no good Admittance nor no good Surrender for that the Heir ought to have come himself in person in Court to take up his Land and afterwards to surrender it or otherwise have procured the Lord to appoint his Steward to have gone to the Prison unto him to have been admitted and afterwards to have surrendred the Lands Some particular things a Copy-holder may doe by his Attorney as he may pay his Rent by his Servant or Attorney or tender it by them and such Payment and Tender shall be good So if the Custome of the Manor be That upon the death of every Copy-holder the Tenant shall pay and render his best Beast unto the Lord for a Heriot there the Heriot may be paid by the Heir before his Admittance or by the Executor of the Copy-holder and such Payment or Tender of it shall be good So by an especial Custome within the Manor a Copy-holder may appoint or M. 5 Jac. in B. R. Bale's Case nominate in the presence of two Tenants of the Manor or other two sufficient Witnesses who shall have his Copy-hold-lands after his decease and also that they may appoint what Fine the Lord shall have for the Admittance of the Tenant so it be a reasonable Fine and such Disposition of his Lands and appointment of Fine shall be good by the Custome But yet after such Disposition made the party who is to have the Land must in person come into the Lord's Court and pray to be admitted unto the same And so was it very
either by Prescription or Custome for that Surrenders generally taken out of Court must be by Custome Proofs If the Under-steward hold a Court 2 E. 6. Br. Tenant per Copie 26. within the Manor and grants Copies by Court-Roll without the authority of the Lord or of the high Steward the Grants are good But contrary it is if he doe it out of Court as it seemeth And there it is a Quere if the high Steward out of Court may grant Lands by Copy But it is clearly holden that he cannot admit a Copy-holder upon a Surrender out of Court without a special authority from the Lord so to doe A Deputy-steward may take a Surrender 19 Eliz. in Co. B. out of Court if the Office be granted to the Steward and his sufficient Deputies or to be exercised by him and his sufficient Deputies as it was Resolved 19 Eliz. in the Court of Common-Pleas The Lord of a Manor may retain a 8 Eliz. Dyer 248. Steward by Word and such a Retainer shall be good untill he be discharged and such a Steward may take a Surrender out of Court as it is holden in Coke 4. part in the Lady Holcroft's Case And so was Co. 4. part Holcroft's Case it Resolved Tr. 41 Eliz. in Harris and Jaye's Case in B. R. But Quere of the first Vr. 31 Eliz. C. B. Blâ—grave and Wood's Case Godb. 142. Point For that Tr. 31. Eliz. in Co. B. in Blagrave and Wood's Case the opinion of the Justices was That a Surrender to a Steward who was by word onely out of Court was not good In 17 Eliz. in Co. B. it was said by M. 17 Eliz. in C. B. by Dyer and Mounson Dyer and Mounson That without a Prescription a Surrender of Copy-hold-land could not be out of Court nor an Admittance out of Court neither to the Lord himself nor to his Steward But in divers places it is used by Custome so to be And then and thereupon the doing of Fealty and the paying of the Lord 's Fine shall be presented by the Homage to be done at the next Court. And all these things they said are to be done by Custome And in that Case it was said by the Lord Dyer That a Surrender out of Court might be to the Lord himself to go by the way of Extinguishment A Copy-holder in Fee did according to the Custome of the Manor surrender his Copy-hold-lands into the hands of two Tenants but the Surrender was to the Use of J S to take effect immediately after his death In this case it was Resolved That as unto the Surrender into the hands of two Tenants that might be good although it was out of Court by Custome But because in that Case the Surrender was unto the Use of J S to take effect immediately after the death of the Surrenderor and a Free-hold cannot begin in futuro or at a day to come by the Common Law and for that the Estates of Copy-holders shall be directed according to the Rules of the Common Law for that cause onely the Surrender was holden to be void But although a Surrender out of Court may be good into the hands of Tenants of the Manor by Custome yet untill such Surrender be presented by them in the Court of the Lord of the Manor the Estate of the Lands doth remain in the Surrenderor and nothing passeth thereby A Copy-holder in Fee did surrender M. 14 Jac. B. R. Froswell and Welshe's Case Bridgman 52. into the hands of two Tenants according to the Custome to the Use of A and B who thereupon entred into and upon the Lands and paid the Rent to the Lord but before any Court was kept for the Manor the Tenants to whom the Surrender was made as also the Copy-holder the Surrenderor all of them died and thereupon the Heir of the Copy-holder Surrenderor entred upon the said A and B and made a Lease for years of the Lands which Lease was warranted by the Custome In that Case it was Resolved That the Lease for years was well made because that before such time that the Presentment was made in Court of the Surrender the Interest of the Copy-holder did remain in the Surrenderor and his Right descended unto and upon his Heir and he might take receive the Rents and Profits of the Lands for that no person can have a Copy-hold or a Copy-hold-Estate but such a person who comes into the same by the Custome of the Manor viz. by Admittance of the Lord which in this Case A and B did not doe But in that Case it was doubted by the Justices but not Resolved Whether the Acceptance of the Rent by the Lord at the hands of the said A and B did amount to an Admittance or not There were two Joynt-tenants in Fee M. 9. Jac. Cro. 2. part Porter and Porter's Case of Lands which were holden by Copy One of them according to the Custome surrendred into the hands of two Tenants to the Use of his last Will and afterwards he made his Will and thereby devised the Lands In that Case it was holden by the Justices That because the said Surrender was presented by the Tenants in the Court of the Lord that the said Surrender should bind the Survivor for that it shall have a relation to the first time of the Surrender But if in that case the Copy-holder who made the Surrender had died before the same had been presented then the Copy-hold had survived to the surviving Joynt-tenant Two Coparcenors Copy-holders were p. 10 Jac. B. R. Godb 141. in possession the one did surrender her Reversion in the Moyety after her decease It was adjudged a void Surrender because a Free-hold could not commence in futuro as well of Copy-hold-lands as of Free-hold-lands A Copy-holder surrendred a Messuage M. 8 Jac. in B. R. Cro. 3. part Burgoyne and Spurling's Case and 20 Acres of Lands into the hands of two Tenants out of Court to the Use of J S and his Heirs upon Condition that if he paid J S 100 l. before such a day the Surrender to be void Before the day of payment he surrendred one Acre parcel of the 20 Acres unto J D and his Heirs and afterwards he performed the Condition by paying the 100 l. and afterwards in Court he surrendred the said Messuage and 20 Acres of Lands into the hands of the Steward to the Use of J N and his Heirs It was found by the Jurours that the first Surrender made to J S was never presented but the two last Surrenders were presented In this Case it was Resolved That by the Conditional Surrender nothing passed untill it was presented but the Interest Right and Possession remained in the Copy-holder who made the Surrender so as he might transfer it to whom he thought good For although it was a Surrender into the hands of Tenants and so according to the manner of the Surrender the same was good by the
and that the Son should not be admitted Tenant during the life of his Mother and farther the Custome was That if any Copy-holder committed Felony and it were presented by the Homage that the Lord might seize the Copy-hold as forfeit The Copy-holder died his Wife was admitted to her Free-Bench The Son committed Felony the Wife died The Question was if the Lord might seize the Copy-hold as forfeit It was objected He could not for that the Son was not Tenant at the time of the Forfeiture committed and so the Lord could not then seize and the Custome should be taken strictly But notwithstanding it was Resolved That the Lord should have the Land as forfeit and that the Son was a Copy-holder within the Intent of the Custome If Husband and Wife be Joynt-Copy-holders of the purchace of the Husband during the Coverture the Husband is attainted of Felony and dieth It is no Forfeiture of any part of the Copy-hold But if the Purchace be made before the Coverture then it is a Forfeiture of the moyety The King being Lord of a Manor a M. 5 Jac. in Scaceario Godb. 269. Copy-holder within the Manor made a Lease of his Copy-hold for 3 Lives and the surviving Tenant for life continued the possession of the Lands for 40 years Though the making of such a Lease for 3 Lives was in Law a Forfeiture of the Copy-hold yet because it did not appear upon the Endorsement of the Deed that Livery was made it was holden That the King could not take advantage of the Forfeiture If a Copy-holder doth bargain and sell his Copy-hold-lands by Deed indented and enrolled it was Resolved The same was no cause of Forfeiture of the Copy-hold of which the Lord can take advantage because the Copy-hold did not pass by the Deed and so it was said it was adjudged in London's Case So if a Copy-holder for life surrendreth to the Use of another in Fee and 35 Eliz. Bullock's Case besides that makes Livery of the Land this is no Forfeiture of his Copy-hold because the Estate passeth by the Surrender and not by the Livery If a Copy-holder for life cuts down Timber-trees it is a Forfeiture of his Copy-hold and so it was adjudged in Belfield and Adams Case But if a Copyholder makes a Lease for years and the Lessee cuts down Timber-trees or commits other Waste upon the Copy-hold-lands the Lord cannot enter upon the Land for a Forfeiture but in such case the Lord is put to his Action upon the Case against the Wrong-doer SECT XI Where the Act of the Lord and what Act of his shall dispense with a Forfeiture made by his Copy-holder where and what not Proofs A Copy-holder commits Waste and after Pasc 5 Jac. Cro. 2. part Mantlie and Willington's Case the Waste done the Lord accepts of the Rent from the hands of the Copy-holder Quere if it shall bar him to enter for the Forfeiture It is a Quere not Resolved If Lands be demisable to two by Copy P. 5 Eliz. Moore 49. for life successivè and the Custome of the Manor is that they may not cut Trees if the first of them cutteth down Trees it is a Forfeiture both of the Estate of the present Tenant for life and of the Estate of the other in Remainder over If a Copy-holder levies a Fine makes a Feoffment or suffers a common Recovery which destroys the Estate in such case no Acceptance of the Rent or Act done by the Lord shall be available to make the Estate again good But where the Custome of the Manor onely is broken as if the Copy-holder makes a Lease of his Copy-hold-lands for more years then one year or denies to pay his Rent or denies to be sworn of the Homage or commits Waste there his Estate may be afterwards confirmed and there and in such case the Acceptance of the Rent by the Lord will amount to a Confirmation of the first Estate In some cases where an Estate of a Copy-holder is forfeited by Law yet by Custome and the Act of the Lord in his Court of the Manor the Forfeiture may be mitigated and the Land shall not be utterly forfeited or destroyed As where the Custome is That for Waste Copy-hold shall be forfeited a Custome for to amerce the Tenant for the Waste done and to distrain for the Amercement will be a good Custome to mitigate the Forfeiture of the Copy-hold The Custome of the Manor where Copy-hold-tenements 17 Car. in B. R. Thorne and Tyler's Case were demisable for lives was That if any such Copy-holder suffered his Messuage to be ruined for want of Repairing or by committing of Waste if the same was presented by the Homage the Lord used to distrain the Cattel as well of the Copy-holder himself as of his Under-tenant levant and couchant upon the Lands for the said Amercement It was objected That the Custome was not good for that it was an unreasonable Custome that the Under-tenant should be punished for the offence of the Copy-holder for the Under-tenant is a Stranger to the Custome and Customes should be taken strictly But it was Resolved that the Custome was good For by the Law the suffering of the Copy-hold Messuage to fall to ruine or to be wasted was a Forfeiture of the Copy-hold and the Custome did abridge and mitigate the Forfeiture and the Under-tenant for a year was a Tenant to the Lord and distrainable for the Rents and Services and the Charge lies upon the Land and not upon the person and therefore it was Adjudged That the Custome was good and the Amercement lawfull and the Distress of the Cattel of the Under-tenant levant upon the Land was lawfull all of them being by the Act of the Lord in his Court and by the Custome of the Manor in mitigation of the Forfeiture of the Land and so for the good of the Copy-holder SECT XII Whether copy-hold-Copy-hold-lands be within the Statute of Westm 2. and may be entailed or not and where and by what Acts the Issues in tail may be barred and what shall be a Discontinuance of the Estate what not WHether Copy-hold-lands are within the Statute of West 2. cap. 1. de Donis c. or may be entailed hath been much controverted and many Judgments and Resolutions have been on both sides and it seemeth to be a Point not fully agreed upon at this day I shall therefore make some little mention what hath been said on either side and leave it to the judgement of others And first for the Affirmative part That Copy-holds are within the said Statute and may be entailed I shall begin with Mr. Littleton himself Tenant by Copy of Court-Roll is saith he where there is a Custome in a Manor time out of mind used that certain Tenants within the said Manor have used to have Lands and Tenements to them and their Heirs in Fee-simple or in fee-Fee-tail and in that Chapter he particularly sets forth the manner of Grants of such Estates
c. I shall not deliver any absolute opinion upon the same although I do much incline to the Affirmative part being chiefly led thereunto by the opinion of Mr. Littleton and by the Resolution in Manxell's Case and of my Lord Coke in Heydon's Case and a late Resolution in the said Point 42 Eliz. in Erish and Rives Case where it was adjudged in the Court of Common Pleas upon an Evidence given in a Case of copy-hold-Copy-hold-lands within the Manor of Istleworth-Sion in the County of Middlesex where it was Resolved That no estate-Estate-tail could be of a Copy-hold without a particular Custome to warrant the same but if there was such a particular Custome within the Manor to warrant such Estates then by the Custome co-operating with the Statute as before is expressed Copy-hold-lands might be well entailed within the said Statute Admitting then that by an especial Custome of the Manor Lands may be entailed the next matter to be considered of is By what and whose Acts the said Estate shall be either discontinued or barred and what shall amount to a Discontinuance or a Bar to the Issue in Tail of such Estate In 13 R. 2. sits Judgment 7. it is 13 R. 2. sits Judgment 7. said That the Heir who is inheritable to the Copy-lands by Custome may recover the same by Plaint in the Court of the Lord in the nature of an Assise of Mort-dauncestor but he shall not have an 15 H. 8. Tenant by Copy 24. Assise of Novel Disscisin And 15 H. 8. Tenant by Copy 24. The Heir of a Copy-holder Tenant in Tail shall recover the Lands in a Formedon in the Discender The Custome of a Manor was That Plaints in the Court of the Lord of the Manor have used to be in real Actions A Recovery was by Plaint in the nature of a real Action against a Copy-holder being Tenant in Tail and a Recovery thereupon had It was holden in that Case That the said Recovery shall be a Discontinuance to take away the Entry of the Heir in Tail because such Plaints are warranted by the Custome and it is an Incident which the Law annexeth to the Custome That a Recovery shall be a Discontinuance But vide Tr. 36 Eliz. in B. R. in Deal and 36 Eliz. B. R. Deal and Rigden's Case Moore 358. Rigden's Case If it had been a Surrender in Court it had been no Discontinuance In 27 Eliz. in a Case concerning the M. 9 Car. in Co. B. Hill and Vpchurche's Case Brownloe 121. Manor of Northhall in the County of Essex That if Copy-hold-lands might be entailed within the Statute of Westm 2. then a Custome of a Surrender of it should be a Bar or a Discontinuance of such Estate for as the Estate might be created by Custome so it might be discontinued by a Surrender by Custome And Tr. 38 Eliz. Field and Eliot's Case A Surrender by Tenant in Tail of a Copy-holder in Fee makes a Discontinuance of it But yet notwithstanding those Authorities and Cases I do conceive that a Surrender is no Discontinuance of a Copy-hold-estate in Tail If a man be seised of a Copy-hold in H. 30 Eliz. B. R. Right and Footeman's Case Leon. 1. part 95. the right of his Wife or be Tenant in Tail of a Copy-hold and he doth surrender to the Use of another in Fee It was holden in that Case That the same doth not make any Discontinuance of the Estate of the Wife or of the Estate-tail but that the Wife or the Issue in Tail may respectively enter into and upon the Land And according to this it was adjudged in Gravenor and Brook's Case before mentioned in 36 Eliz. copy-hold-Copy-hold-lands were entailed and 37 Eliz. in C. B. Lane and Hilâ—'s Case the Copy-holder surrendred the said Lands to the Use of another man in Tail with divers Remainders over and then he died It was said in this Case That it was no Discontinuance of the Tail but the Issue in Tail notwithstanding the Surrender might enter But it was said in that Case That if it were a Discontinuance that in such case a Formedon in the Reverter did not lie by the Tenant in Tail because when a Copy-holder makes a Gift in Tail he hath no Reversion but a Possibility and the Lord shall avow upon the Donee for the Rents and Services and not upon the Donor In Trespass it was adjudged That a H. 1 Jac. Oldcatâ—'s Case Moore 753. Surrender by Tenant in Tail of a Copy-hold was not any Discontinuance of it no more then a Surrender by Tenant for life to another in Fee was a Forfeiture If an Enfant Tenant in Tail surrendreth H. 35 Eliz. Goales and Gran's Case adjudge acc his Copy-hold-lands to the Use of a Stranger who is admitted the Enfant may enter at his full age because it was not a Bar nor a Discontinuance It is not to be disputed or questioned whether a Common Recovery of Lands at the Common Law with Voucher over and Warranty be a Bar of Lands entailed It is universally received by all Learned in the Laws of the Realm to be a Bar of such an Estate and the Inheritances of a great many persons of Quality and others do depend upon such Common Recoveries had and suffered But then the Question hath been whether a Common Recovery had and suffered in the Court of the Lord of the Manor shall be a Bar of an Estate of Copy-hold-lands entailed and for that it will stand upon this difference Where the Custome of the Manor hath always been that such a Recovery there had shall be a Bar where not For without a special Custome I do conceive that by a Recovery had and suffered in the Court of the Lord of the Manor an Estate-tail of copy-hold-Copy-hold-lands cannot be barred But where such a Custome is or hath been out of mind used there I conceive that a common Recovery had and suffered in the Court of the Manor will bar an Estate in Tail of Copy-hold-lands I shall onely put you two Judgments and Resolutions to make good this difference although many others may be alledged Upon a special Verdict in an Action P. 37 Eliz. in B. R. Clun and Pease's Case Cro. 1. part of Trespass it was found That the Lands were Copy-hold demisable in Tail with the Remainder over in Tail That Tenant in Tail in possession suffered a Common Recovery with Voucher in the Court of the Manor of these Lands and afterwards died But there was not any Custome found for suffering Recovery of such Lands in the Court of the said Manor It was holden by the whole Court in that Case That the Recovery should not bind the Tail but upon a Recompence in value and in that case the Issue could not have Land in value Also the Lord should lose his Fine and the party to whose Use the Recovery was had should hold the Lands without Admittance or Grant from the Lord which is contrary to
the nature of a Copy-hold The other Case was this Land was M. 37 Eliz. in B. R. Eylett and Lane's Case Cro. 1. part demisable in Tail by Custome A Copy-holder demised the Land in Tail by Copy The Copy-holder suffered a Common Recovery in the Court of the Manor with Voucher and Warranty The Court at the first doubted of it because a Warranty could not be annexed to such an Estate in Tail But yet afterwards it was Resolved That the Recovery there was a Bar of the Tail And Note for a Conclusion of this Point That at this day by the Customes of several Manors Common Recoveries are had and suffered in the Courts of Lords of Manors for the docking and barring of Estate tails of Copy-holds And much inconvenience would ensue both if Copy-holds at this day might not by Custome be entailed and likewise if by Custome Common Recoveries had of Estate-tails with Voucher over in the Courts of Lords of Manors should not thereby be docked and barred SECT XIII What things are incident to a Copy-holder and what he may take of common right without the Grant or Licence of the Lord And what Acts upon the Land shall bind the Copy-holder what not IF a Copy-holder according to the Custome doth surrender into the hands of 2 Tenants to the Use of J S and his Heirs and afterwards the Copy-holder dieth before the Presentment be made of the Surrender by the Tenants and the Lord before the Presentment accepts of the Rent of J S generally but not as a Copy-holder the Heir of the Surrenderor may eâ—ter into and upon the Lands and receive the Profits thereof to his own use for that nothing vesteth in the Surrenderee before Admittance and the Inheritance of the Copy-hold is in the Heir quasi by Discent To have Common in the Wastes of Pasch 45 Eliz adjudge acc the Lord is not a thing incident to his Copy-hold but is by Prescription or Custome of the Manor If therefore a Copy-holder purchaseth the Inheritance of the Land the Interest of the Common being a thing intire is gone and determined But if the Copy-holder doth surrender part of his Copy-hold-lands to the Use of another who is admitted yet his whole Common is not thereby determined but he shall have Common still for the Lands not surrendred A Copy-holder may take House-bote 9 H. 4. â— Waste 59. Coke select Cases 68. Hedg-bote and Plough-bote upon his Copy-hold-lands of common right as a thing incident to the Grant if it be not restrained by a Custome that the Copy-holder shall not take it but by Assignment of the Lord or his Bailiff And if the Lord where the Tenant hath such Botes cuts down all the Woods and Under-woods which are standing and growing upon the Lands to prevent the Copy-holder of his Botes he may have an Action of Trespass against the Lord as it was Resolved in Heydon and Smith's Case Pasch 8 Jac. in Co. B. A Manor may be Copy-hold and holden M. 8 Jac. B. R. The King and Stafferton's Case Yelv. 190 191. of another Manor by Copy of Court-Roll and if such a Copy-hold-Manor be granted unto J S and his Heirs J S may hold a Copy-Court within his said Manor without a special Grant of it for that of common right a Court-Baron or a Copy-hold Court is incident to every Manor A Lord of a Manor grants a Copy-hold P. 26 Eliz. C. B. Chaw and Dover's Case Leon. 1. part 16. for â— Lives and afterwards takes a Wife The 3 Lives end 〈◊〉 determine The Lord enters into the Manor and keeps the Copy-hold-lands in his hands for a time and then grants the Lands over again by Copy and dieth The Wife of the Lord enters and clums Dower in it In this Case it was Resolved That the Copy-holder should hold the Lands discharged of the Dower because the Copy-holder comes and is in the Lands by the Custome which is paramount to the title of Dower A Copy-holder is feised of Lands at P. 5 Eliz. by Dyer Vâ—de Moore 50. Common Law and also of Lands holden by Copy of Court-Roll and he by Indenture without Licence of the Lord makes one Lease of both Lands rendring Rent It was said by Dyer That in such case the whole Rent is issuing out of the Lands at Common Law because the Lease as to the Copy-hold-lands was utterly void If the Lord grants to his Copy-holder P. 12 Eliz. in B. R. Moore 94. the Trees growing upon the Lands and which shall after grow with liberty to cut them down and carry them away he may justifie the cutting of the Trees which are growing and it shall not be a Forfeiture of his Copy-hold because the Lord hath by his Grant dispensed with it But he cannot cut down the Trees which shall there after grow as it was said by Plowden and Popham If a Copy-holder binds himself in a Pasc 12 Eliz. in B. R. adjudge acc Statute his Copy-hold-lands shall not be extended upon the said Statute because the Copy-holder in the eye of the Law hath an Estate but ad voluntatem Domini secundùm Consuetudinem Manerii But if a man be Tenant for life or years of a Manor and a Copy-hold comes to his hands by Forfeiture or other determination and he binds himself in a Statute although the Copy-hold be after granted yet it may be extended upon the Statute because the Copy-hold was annexed to the Free-hold and joyned with it in the hands of the Lord when the Statute was acknowledged and entred into The Custome of a Manor was That a Copy-holder might cut and lop Trees M. 5 Jac. Swayn and Beckett's Case Moore 812. for Hedg-bote and other necessaries The Queen made a Lease of the Manor to J S with Exception of Trees King James granted the Reversion to J D in Fee The Assignees of the Term granted a Copy-hold to other for 3 Lives Habendum to them successivé The Copy-holder cut Trees It was Resolved That the Copy-holder was in by the Custome paramount the Exception although he took his Estate after the Exception and therefore might justifie the cutting of the Trees for the Hedg-bâ—â—e and other necessaries The Husband seised in Fee of Copy-hold-lands 35 Eliz. Co. 4. part Bullock and Dibles's Case in the right of his Wife surrendred the same to another who was admitted and afterwards the Husband died It was Adjudged that in this case the Wife might enter and she should not be put to her Cui in vita If there be Lessee for life the Remainder M. 9 Jac. in Co. B. adiudge acc for life of a Copy-hold and the first Tenant for life doth purchase the Freehold of the Copy-hold and levies a Fine thereof and 5 years pass it was Adjudged That this Fine should bar him in the Remainder of his Copy-hold SECT XIV Where the Lord of the Manor shall be Chancellour in his own Court to determine the
said Statutes shall be construed most beneficially for Creditors i. e. suum cuique tribuere There are divers other Statutes and Acts of Parliament which extend to Copy-hold-lands viz. 1. The Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 13 14. of Forgery 2. The Statutes of 5 R. 2. of Departure out of the Realm and 14 Eliz. of Fugitives 3. The Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 9. of Buying of Pretensed Titles All which Statutes extend to Copy-hold-lands of which I might shew many Cases and Resolutions of the Justices in their several Courts But because the same would make this Section to be long and tedious and my Intention was to use much brevity in this Addition and Amplification of what in the former part of this Treatise hath been written concerning Copy-hold and Customary Estates I shall here put an End to the Work FINIS The Contents of the several Sections SECTION I. WHat a Surrender of Copy-hold or Customary Estate is to whom and in what manner and place it is to be done and who shall be said such a Tenant of a Copy-hold as may make such a Surrender Page 1 Sect. II. Whether a Copy-hold may be said to be surrendred by any Act Words or Agreement made betwixt the Lord and the Copy-holder or by the Copy-holder with a Stranger made in the Court in the Presence of the Lord or his Steward 5 Sect. III. Of Surrenders out of Court and where Surrenders to the Steward Deputy-steward or into the hands of Tenants of the Manor out of Court shall be good where not 9 Sect. IV. Where although Surrenders are made to the Lord or to Tenants out of Court by Custome yet nothing passeth out of the Copy-holder before Admittance And what shall be a good Admittance in such case what not 17 Sect. V. Where some things and what things may be done by the Copy-holder or his Heir before Admittance 21 Sect. VI. Where the Lord is but an Instrument to convey the Copy-hold by Admittance onely and that the Surrenderee is in by the Copy-holder and not by the Lord. 23 Sect. VII Where the Admittance of the particular Tenant shall be the Admittance of him in the Remainder 27 Sect. VIII By what and whose Act either of the Law of the Copy-holder himself or of the Lord severally or all together the Copy-land or Estate shall be gone determined or extinguished and where suspended onely 30 Sect. IX Of Forfeitures of Copy-holds and Copy-hold-estates and what Acts or things done by the Copy-holder shall amount unto or be adjudged a Forfeiture of the Copy-holder's Estate what not 36 Sect. X. Where deniall or refusall to pay his Rent Fine or to doe his other Customes and Services shall be a Forfeiture of his Copy-hold and Copy-hold-estate and where not 39 Sect. XI Where the Act of the Lord and what Act of his shall dispense with a Forfeiture made by his Copy-holder where and what not 48 Sect. XII Whether copy-hold-Copy-hold-lands be within the Statute of Westm 2. and may be entailed or not and where and by what Acts the Issues in tail may be barred and what shall be a Discontinuance of the Estate what not 51 Sect. XIII What things are incident to a Copy-holder and what he may take of common right without the Grant or Licence of the Lord And what Acts upon the Land shall bind the Copy-holder what not 64 Sect. XIV Where the Lord of the Manor shall be Chancellour in his own Court to determine the Differences which arise betwixt Copy-holders 69 Sect. XV. Of Surrenders upon Conditions and where such Surrenders shall be good where not 70 Sect. XVI Where Custome which warrants the Lord or his Copy-holder to grant greater Estates warrants the Grants of lesser Estates 76 Sect. XVII Who shall be said such a Lord of a Manor as may grant Copy-hold-estates and how long such Estates shall continue and what persons shall be capable of Copy-hold-estates what not and what may be granted by Copy 79 Sect. XVIII What Acts or things are inseparable and must be done by the Copy-holder himself and what acts and where may be done by his Attorney 83 Sect. XIX What Customes within Copy-hold-Manors shall be said to be good and reasonable Customes and what not 88 Sect. XX. Where and in what case a Copy-holder or his Lessee upon an Ouster may have and maintain against the Ejector an Ejectione firme and where and in what not 97 Sect. XXI What Statutes and Acts of Parliament do extend to Copy-holds and Copy-hold-estates what not 99 FINIS