and Judgment pro Quer for that the Replication doth not confess or avoid nor deny the bar to the Avowry Winch Entur p 997 998 999. Foster and Woodcock Eject Bar que W. seisitus de Manor grants custumar terÌ„es in Reversion al Def. auters pur vies Repl que W. demised ceo Manor al C. R. determinable pur vie del M. ilsÌ„ assigne al M. qui grant Reversion de terÌ„es al H. pur vie Rej. que D. fuit prius seisitus de Manor que descend al 3 Coheirs quas W. disseise c. Surrej ê‘ maintenance de Replic Traverse le disseisin Demur inde Co. Ent. 184. Replev Quod Reg. Eliz. seisita de manerio unde c. concessit terÌ„as custumar R. M. Vxori ejus hered Vxoris qui sursum reddider ad usum Def. Bar quod W. prius seisitus de maner concessit terras al J. de quo descend al P. qut sursum reddidit al A. qui sursum reddidit al M. pur vie qui dimisit quer Repl quod W. ante concession al J. concessit terÌ„as al B. de quo discend al M. qui sursum reddidit Def. travers grant al J. issue inde Co. Ent. 575. Quod J. seisitus de maner unde c. concessit Def. pro vita in Reversion terÌ„as custumar dimissibil pro 2 vitis tam in Possessione quam in Reversione Hern 724. TrnsÌ„ quod C. seisitus de manerio concessit terÌ„as customar in feod al B. de quo descend Def. Repl C. fuit sisitus de manerio unde c. quod discend quer traverse quod terÌ„e sunt custum U. B. 153. TrnsÌ„ Def. justif sub tenentur custum monstroit le Estate de Copyhold durante viduitate Tomps 395. TrnÌ„s novel assignmtur Def. dicit quod pmissa tempore c. parcel custmaria dimissibilia ê‘ cop cuicunque ê‘sone ill capere volent in Talliatur seu pro vita Et quod F. G. pd fuit seisitus ad cur tentur 26 Martij dimisit cuidam W. in feodo qui dimisit Def. pro Anno virtute cujus c. done Colour Repl quod pmissa sunt liberum tenementum quer sic manutenet narÌ„ationem traverse que pmisse fuer parcel manerij de L. Rej. exitus sur traverse Keb. 465 467. In Repl Copyhold in Reversion ê‘ copiam tenentur in possessione advocat captionem pur Damage fesant custom del Manor granter Estates en possession ou reversion Hern 777. CAP. XXXIII Evidence Tryal Issue What shall be a good Evidence to prove the Custom alledged or not Presumptive Evidence Where Copy of a Lease is good Evidence What shall be tryed by the Jury and what by the Court-Rolls Substance found in special Verdict Who may be admitted to give Evidence When Issue is taken upon a Surrender where to be Tryed Venue What shall be a good Evidence to prove the Custom or not THE Custom of a Manor was laid to be That if a Copy-holder hath two Sons and a Wife and dyes and the eldest Son hath Issue and dies in the Life of the Wife that the younger Son shall have the Land the Issue being upon the Custom the Jury found the Custom to be That the younger Son shall have the Land unless the eldest was admitted in his Life and paid the Lords Fine Per Curiam the Verdict is not sufficient to prove the Issue Moor n. 566. In Replevin If the Defendant justifies the taking as Damage fesant The Plaintiff in bar pleads by reason of a Common to such a Copy-hold for all Beasts Levant and Couchant and avers that these Beasts were Levant and Couchant c. upon which the Parties were at Issue and it is found that part of the Beasts were Levant and Couchant Part found for the whole and part not this is found for the Defendant for the Issue is upon the whole and the contrary to it is found Trin. 17 Jac. B. Sloper and Allen. The Issue was in Kemp and Carters Case 1 Leon Case 70. p. 55. If the Lord of the Manor granted the Lands in question Per copiam rotulorum curiae Manerij praed secundum consuetud Manerij praed It was given in Evidence That within the said Manor were divers custumary Lands and that the Lord now of late at the Court of the said Manor granted the Land per Copiam Rotulorum curiae where it was never granted by Copy before Per Cur. the Jury are bound to find Dominus non concessit for notwithstanding de facto Dominus concessit per Copiam Rotulorum curiae Non concessit yet non concessit secundum consuetudinem manerij predict for the said Land was not custumary nor had the Custom taken hold of it Several Customs within several limits ought to be specially shewed It was shewed then That within the said Manor some customary Lands are demisable for Life only and some in Fee By Anderson Chief Justice He who will give in Evidence these several Customs ought to shew the several Limits wherein the several Customs are severally running as that the Manor extends into two Towns and that the Lands in one of the said Towns are grantable for Lives only and the Lands in the other in Fee and he ought not to shew the several Customs promiscue valere through the whole Manor In an Action brought The Defendant alledgeth a Custom of a Copy-hold to be demised in Fee Tayl or for Life and made Title by a demise in Fee to himself The Plaintiff traversed the Custom and the Custom was found to be Substance found to demise in Fee or for Life but not in Tayl Per Cur. the Issue was found for the Defendant because the substance was found for him and the Tayl was but inducement Moor n. 490. Dorley and Wood. Wadsworth's Case before Judge Crawley at York Assises was upon an Intail of a Copy-hold within the Manor of W. and several antient Intails shewed in Evidence in Edward III. time and remainders limited over upon such Intails and Plaints in nature of Formedons brought there for such Remainders and Recoveries thereupon and several Issues after had taken their Admittances as of Fee simple Land as Heirs in Fee and for this cause Purchasers look at the Copies Presumptive Evidence and seeing Fee-simple in Admittances are secure the Estate is so and apply their Assurances accordingly the Jury found for the Plaintiff against this Intail and it shall be presumed the Intail hath been cut off some way when many Admittances have been in Fee simple The Custom of a Manor is Less Estate than the Custom That the Wife shall have it during her Life and on Evidence it appears that she shall have it durante viduitate this Evidence doth not maintain the Custom 4 Rep. 30. If the Parties be at Issue upon the time of the Surrender made or the Court holden The time of the Surrender or of the
Lords may keep Courts and grant Copies and such customary Manor may pass by Surrender and Admittance 11 Rep. 17. Sir H. Nevil's Case And so it is resolved in More and Goodgame's Case Croke Jac. 327. That within one Manor there may be another Manor demisable by Copy and within that Manor there may be customary Tenants for as well as there may be a Tenant at will of a Manor at the Common Law so there may be a Tenant at will according to the Custom of the Manor Vide infra sub titulo Courts Pleading But the way of pleading it must be thus That such a Manor hath been used time out of mind to be granted by Copy and also that time out of mind such Grantees had used to hold Court Barons and to grant Copies of Court Rolls to others and so to prescribe in this time out of mind 1 Bulstr 57. The King and Stafferton Yelv. p. 190. mesme Case The Manor of Haylsham in the County of Norfolk is held by Copy and such a Manor by Escheat ceaseth to be a Manor For by the Escheat the Services be extinct and one Court Baron only shall be held after the Escheat But though one Manor may be held of another Manor One Manor cannot be parcel of another yet one Manor may not be parcel of another Manor and both be in esse at the same time for being Liberties and Franchises of the same nature non possunt stare insimul More 's Case The Lord may create a customary Manor Though the Lord by his own act may not make out of one Manor at Common Law divers several Manors consisting of Demesns and Freeholds yet he may well by his own act make a customary Manor consisting of Copy-holds and they shall hold Court. As if he grant the Inheritance or makes a Lease of all his Copy-hold Lands for two thousand years the Grantee or Lessee may hold Court for the Copy-holders 4 Rep. 26 27. Melwyche's Case and Neal and Jackson's Case Vide infra sub titulo Courts For they have a kind of Seigniory in gross and may keep a customary Court where the Steward shall be Judge and shall take Surrenders and make Admittances Of Grants and Leases of a Manor and how Services shall pass and what and when shall be said to continue as parcel of the Manor after a Grant or Lease and what shall be a severance A man seized of a Manor leaseth part of the Demesns for Years or Life Reversion the Reversion remains parcel of the Manor A man seized of a Manor in the right of his Wife Leased part of it for Years without his Wife the Reversion thereof is not parcel of the Manor Contrary if the Lease had been made by the Husband and Wife By Feoffment of the Manor the Services do not pass without Attornment Lit. 127. Attornment 6 Rep. Bracebridge's Case If a man make a Feoffment of a Manor in which are Tenants at will according to the Custom there Services shall pass by the Feoffment without their Attornment Rolls Abridgment 293. By a Grant of all the Demesns the Waste passeth unless excepted 2 Keb. 558. North and Howland W. H. was seized of twelve Acres holden of the Manor of W. by Suit and Services and devised to the Defendant F. H. in Tayl the remainder in Fee After which F. H. purchased the Manor this being by purchase maketh not the Land parcel but by Escheat it doth 2 Keb. Holmes and Hanby But this Case is more clearly Reported by Mr. Siderfin as followeth If one who had Land held of a Manor be Tenant in Tayl of it and the Manor is given to him the Land in Tayl shall not pass by Grant of the Manor The Lord of a Manor deviseth to J. S. the Manor in Tayl the remainder over J. S. had twenty Acres in Fee which were held of the Manor by Suit of Court and he being so seized of all conveys the Manor to A. in Fee Per Cur. these twenty Acres shall not pass as Demesn of the Manor for if it pass as part of the Demesns this ought to have been so time out of memory and there is a diversity between Land Escheated which comes in lieu of other Land and Land purchased as this was Siderfin 284. Holmes and Hanby Lands holden in Fee of a Manor are not parcel of a Manor but the Rents and Services issuing out of it are parcel of the Manor Brook Manor 2.22 H. 6.53 Reversion If a man let all the Demesns of a Manor for Life rendring Rent yet the Reversion is parcel of the Manor and it shall pass by the grant of the Manor Dyer 6. 7 El. 10. Attornment If a man let ten Acres of the Demesns of a Manor for ten years rendring Rent and afterwards demiseth the entire Manor by the name of a Manor c. for twenty years to commence at a day to come An Interest in the ten Acres shall pass to the Lessee of the Manor after the expiration of the first ten years although no attornment be by the first Termor for this shall pass as parcel of the Manor and not as a Reversion for the ten Acres were never severed from the Manor but the Free-hold and Fee of it remains parcel and member of the gross and body name of the Manor Dyer 18 El. 350.18 Pl. Com. Bracebridge's Case 423. Without express Grant the Copy-hold cannot be severed by any distinct reservation or service yet the entire Manor may be held by different Services as to the Demesns How Copy-hold may be severed from the Manor and how not altho' not the Services as well by the Grant of the King as of a common person without disjoyning any part of the Manor as reservation of one Service on the Grant of the Manor another on the Advowson 1 Keb. 720. Lee and Boothby After partition of a Manor by Coparceners Coparceners one party cannot Lease her part by the name of the moity of the Manor 1 Anders 222. It was cited by Richardson and Hutton Note to be one Hurston's Case Ejectment That an Ejectment cannot be of a Mannor because there cannot be an Ejectment of the Services but if they express farther a certain quantity of Acres it is sufficient Hetly p. 80. Norris and Isham Neither is it safe to bring Ejectment of a Manor unless the attornment of Tenants be proved Hetly 146. Warden's Case Pleadings Unum Maner parcel alterius Ra. Entr. 25.271.357 Terre pleded esse parcel del Mannor usque concession ' tali die 1 Rep. 431. CAP. II. The Notion and Nature of a Copy-hold as to its Basis and Foundation How a Copy-holder and Tenant at Will differ The general Maxims of Copy-hold Estates Explicated and thereby the ensuing Cases in this Book rendred more easy and intelligible THE Stile of a Copy-holder imports three things according to my Lord Coke Lit. 1. Nomen his Name and that is Tenant
groweth to perfection in this manner When a reasonable Act once done is found to be good and beneficial to the People and agreeable to their nature and disposition then do they use it and practise it again and again and so by often iteration and multiplication of the Act it becomes a Custom and being continued without interruption time out of mind it obtaineth the force of a Law So that Custom in the intendment of Law is such an Usage which hath obtained vim Legis and is revera a binding Law to such a particular place persons and things wherein it is concerned Davis's Preface to his Reports Custom then may be defined a reasonable Act iterated multiplied and continued by the People time out of mind Custom in some Cases alters the nature of Free-hold 5 Rep. 84. Pennyman's Case A fortiori of a Copy-hold Hetly p. 126 127. Turner and Hodges Consuetudo privat communem Legem Custom is a ground and need not be proved for the reason of every Custom cannot be shewed as it was said in Knightly and Spencer's Case But though Custom takes away Common Law yet Common Law corrects allows and disallows both Statute Law and Custom for if there be repugnancy in Statute or unreasonableness in Custom the Common Law disallows and rejects it as appears in Dr. Bonham's Case 8 Coke 27. Now Custom being the life and soul of Copy-hold Estates I shall in the next Chapter largely treat thereof in the full extent of it Maxims of Customs 1. A Custom shall in construction be taken strictly and shall not be extended beyond the words of it One intituled himself to a Copy-hold in this manner That within the Manor there is such a Custom that if one taketh to Wife any customary Tenant of the Manor in Fee and hath Issue by her if he over-live the said Wife he shall be Tenant by the Curtesie The Case was he married a Wife who at the time of the marriage had no Copy-hold but afterwards during the Coverture a Copy-hold descended to her It was held in Sir John Savages Case cited in Beal and Langly's Case 2 Leon p. 208. That no Tenancy by the Curtesie did accrew by the Custom which did not extend but where the Wife was a Copy-holder at the Marriage So a Custom was If a Copy-holder in Fee dyes having Issue Three Daughters the eldest shall have all The Case was A Purchaser of a Copy-hold dyes without Issue having many Sisters they shall be Câ—parceners for the Custom extends only to Daughters So Burrough English The middle Brother Purchaseth Lands and dyes sans Issue the eldest shall have it and not the youngest 2 Rolls Rep. 368. So a Custom which goes in bar or deprivation of an Estate shall be taken strictly Carter's Rep. 87 88. Yelv. p. 1. Baspool's Case Forfeiture of a Copy-hold for Life shall not forfeit the Remainder Custom was If any Copy-holder in Fee Surrender out of Court and the Cesty que use doth not come into Court to take his Copy-hold after three Proclamations then the Lord shall seize it as forfeited And if a Copy-holder in Fee surrender to the use of one for Life remainder over in Fee and Tenant for Life comes not in Court upon the Proclamations this shall not forfeit the remainder The Custom shall be taken strictly being in destruction of an Estate and it shall be intended only of a Tenant in Fee in possession and not in remainder 1 Rolls Abr. 568. Baspool and Long. And yet it shall not be taken literally always as in the common Case Custom to grant Lands in Fee-simple yet they may grant in Tayl for Life or Years but that stands upon this Rule Omne majus includit in se minus 2. Customs are to construed according to vulgar apprehension because Customs grow generally and are bred and brought up amongst the Lay-gents therefore they are called Vulgares Consuetudines and they shall be interpreted according to the most effectual operation of the Law Stiles 146. 3. Custom does not trench to things collateral to the Estate such as Entries for Conditions Copy-holder by Licence lets the Land for 60 years rendring Rent upon condition of re-entry Copy-holder surrenders to J. S. in Fee who demands the Rent which not being paid Enters His entry per Cur. is not good for Copy-hold Land is not within the Statute of Conditions nor the Surrender of such a Copy-hold such an Assignee as the Statute intends he being in only by Custom is not privy to the Lease made by the first Copy-holder nor in by him but may plead his Estate immediately under the Lord Yelv. p. 222. Brasier and Beal 4. When a Custom warrants a greater Estate it warrants a less The Custom was That Copy-hold Lands may be granted to any person in Fee-simple A Grant to one and the Heirs of his Body is within this Custom So a Grant for Life or Years And a Fee-simple includes all 4 Rep. 23. The Custom is to grant for one two or three Lives A Grant to one durante viduitate is good 4 Rep. 29. Down and Hopkins Cro. El. p. 323. mesme Case 5. Custom of a Manor cannot extend out of a Manor therefore it ought to appear in Pleading That the Locus in quo c. est infra Manerium Hobart p. 286. Roberts and Young 6. Custom may enlarge a Grant farther than Common Law as Sibi suis So to one and his Heirs by Custom may be restrained to particular Heirs 2 Keb. 158.174 7. If a Custom hath a reasonable commencement it may be good And therefore a Custom for Copy-holders to have solam separalem pasturam may have a reasonable commencement by voluntary Agreement of the Lord with his Copy-holders to induce them to hold their customary Estates at Will and bestow their pains and labour in improvement Sanders 2. p. 326 327. Robins and Hoskins Vide Vaughan Rep. North and Coe good reasons for the contrary Opinion 8. What may be claimed by Prescription may be good by Custom and what may have commencement by Grant may be claimed by Prescription 2 Sanders 326. 9. A Custom never extendeth to a thing newly created If there be a Custom within a Manor That for every House or Cottage two shillings Fine shall be paid now if the Tenant make two Houses of one he shall pay no Fine for the new made House But alteration of Rooms alters not the case in Prescription 10. Custom is an entire thing and cannot be apportioned yet this Rule shall not bind-the King Vide supra 11. Consuetudo semel reprobata non potest amplius induci As Continuance makes the Custom so Discontinuance destroys it Custom What things are requisite to make a good Custom Four things are required to make a good Custom Antiquity Continuance Certainty Reason 1. Antiquity Every Custom had a beginning although the Memory of man doth not extend to it And this is one of the grand Pillars of Copy-hold Estates Therefore in
in the possession in the right and Time Possession must be Longa continua pacifica Now observe a Title once gained by Custom or Prescription cannot be lost by interruption of the Possession for ten or twenty years but by interruption in the Right As if a man hath had a Rent or Common by Prescription unity of Possession of as high and perdurable Estate is an interruption in the Right Co. Lit. 114. b. And if a man hath Common by Prescription and takes a Lease of the Land for twenty years the Common is suspended for that time and after the years ended he may claim the Common again by Prescription 1. Personal Prescription and in that Inhabitants may Prescribe as for a Way or matter of Ease or Discharge Gateward's Case 2. Real Prescription and this is inherent to the Estate and this is where a man Prescribeth That he and all those whose Estate he hath c. Prescription as to the Estate of the Land and not to the Land it self 3. Local Prescription not as to Land but to the Estate and therefore the Custom was That the Copy-holder should have Common in the Waste of the Lord the Lord by Deed confirms to a Copy-holder to have to him and his Heirs with its Appurtenances The Question was whether his Copy-hold now being destroyed he shall have Common by the word Appurtenances Per Cur. the Common is extinct and not revived for this is a local Prescription not to the Land but only to the Estate and this proves well the words of the Prescription for the Copy-holder ought to Prescribe That every customary Tenant within the Manor c. So he hath his Common in respect that he is customary Tenant and this is in respect of the Estate which he hath by the Custom and not in respect of the Land 2 Brownl 210. Marsham and Hunter Copy-holder for Life cannot Prescribe against his Lord but Copy-holder in Fee may Copy-holder for Life may not Prescribe against his Lord. Copy-holder in Fee may and how for he hath the Copy-hold in nature of Land of Inheritance Stiles 233. Cage and Dod. Per Cur. a Copy-holder may Prescribe by an usitatum est against his Lord but against a Stranger he must Prescibe in the name of the Lord More n. 647. 6. Rep. 60. Copy-holder of Inheritance may Prescribe in the name of the Lord to be discharged of Tythes Noy p. 132. Copy-holders may not Prescribe against their own Lord omnino nor against any other but only in the name of their Lord and the manner of laying it is by a Custom when they claim any thing or profit out of the Lords Soyl vide Sanders 324 5 6. Hoskin and Roberts What shall be said a pursuance of a Custom or not If the Custom be That the Lord may Demises Copy-hold in Fee he may Demise them for Life Years or in Tayl for these Estates are included in a Fee which is greater 1 Roll. Abr. Staunton and Barns Cok. Lit. 52. Vide supra Maxims and Customs 4 Rep. 23. The Case of the Manor of Allesly in Warwickshire Solummodo how expounded If the Custom be That the Lord may solummodo Demise his Copy-hold Land in Fee yet the Lord may Demise this for Life or Years or in Tayl though there was never any such Estate made before for the word solummodo is not to be taken so strictly to restrain the Lord of this liberty which the Law gives upon the general Custom but that he had used solummodo to grant in Fee which doth not take away the liberty which the Law gives 1 Rolls Abr. 511. mesme Case Custom is to Grant for one two or three Lives a Grant to one durante viduitate is within the Custom for the Estate granted was less than the Custom warranted The Custom was That the Wife shall have the Land for term of her Life The Evidence was That the Custom was that she shall have it durante viduitate Per Cur. This Evidence doth not maintain the Custom 4 Rep. 30. Downe and Hopkin's Case A Grant to three for the Lives of two is within the Custom of three Lives If the Custom be That Copyholds may be granted for three Lives a Copy may be granted to three for the Lives of two within this Custom For it is no inconvenience to the Lord although it be pur auter vie for there shall be no occupancy of it but the Lord shall have it if the Tenants pur auter vie dye living cesty que vies and this is not a greater Estate than three Lives but lesser Rolls Abr. 511. Ven and Howel But to one for Life Remainder to another for Life c. is not good A Copy-holder where the Custom was to Demise for three Lives demised to one for Life the remainder to such an one as he should marry and the first Son of his Body resolved that both the remainders were void but the Estate for his own Life is good More n. 922. Webster and Allen. Custom is when any Tenant sells his Tenement three Proclamations shall be made the next Court day and if any of the Blood of the Vendor will give as much mony as the Vendor will he shall have it A Tenant in consideration of one hundred pounds in Mony and that the Vendee being his Physician had cured him sold it to him and the next of Blood at next Court offers a hundred pound yet he shall not have it for it was given partly for the other consideration and the Custom shall be for mony only 1 Rolls Abr. 568. So if he had sold it in consideration of a Lease for years and 1 d. ibid. CAP. V. Of particular Customs either enabling or disabling in respect of the Lord of the Tenant and of the Estate Limited or Leased and in respect of Discents WHAT particular Customs have been adjudged good or what not either enabling or disabling Customs Vide supra of Customs ratione loci And they may be considered in three respects Of the Lord. Of the Tenant Of the Estate 1. In respect of the Lord and his Priviledge The Wife of the Lord shall not be endowed against a Copy-holder for the title of Dower is not consummate before the death of her Husband Dower so as the title of the Copy-holder is paramount and compleated before the title of Dower Leon. 152. Waste The succeeding Lord shall not take advantage of Waste done in the time of the preceeding Lord 2 Siderfin p. 9. Chamberlain and Drake Vide infra Common A Custom That none shall put his Cattel into the Common before the Lord puts in his is not good Vide supra the Rules of Customs 1 Bulstr Earl of Northumberland vers Wheeler 21 Ed. 4. 28 b. Fine A Custom that a Copy-holder shall upon the change of every Lord pay a Fine is void Vide the Rules of Customs For the Lord may change his Manor every day Had it been that
in curia manus Senel Ra. Ent. 645. Simil. per 1 vel 2 Tenentes ut Attornatus Co. Ent. 657. CAP. XIV What shall pass and by what words in a Surrender Of Attornment The Construction and Exposition of a Surrender Where no Vse or Estate is immediately limited in whole or in part And where an Vse is limited how far the Construction shall go according to the Rules of the Common Law or not Of Surrender to Vse upon Vse To the Vse of one's Wife Where a Surrender is void for the uncertainty Of a Surrender to the Vse of a person not in esse And of a Surrender to take effect in futuro What shall pass and by what words in a Surrender B. Covenants to assure all his Copy-hold Lands to A. after he Surrenders out of Court according to Custom diverse parcels by particular Names the Surrender is enrolled accordingly with this Conclusion By the name of all his Copy-hold Lands there yet no more shall pass than what was named in the Surrender Dyer 8 El 251. Harvy Justice said he knew it to be adjudged That a Surrender cum pertinentijs will pass Land Hetly p. 2. And that a Surrender of a Messuage and three Acres would pass more Acres if divers Copies successive have been so I suppose he means if the words cum pertinentijs be in What Ceremony c. is requisite or not to make good a Surrender Attornment A Copy-holder with Licence leased for Years rendring Rent and afterwards surrendred the Reversion with the Rent to the use of a Stranger who is admitted Here needs no Attornment either to settle the Reversion or create a privity for the Surrender and Admittance are in the nature of an Inrollment and amount to an Attornment or at least supply the want of it 1 Leon. 297. But there must be an Admittance by the Lord but in such case there shall be no Entry for Condition broken without Attornment Hobart 177. Swinnerton and Miller 1 Rolls Abr. 235. mesme Case Vide sparsim de Attornment The Construction and Operation of Surrenders Where no Use or Estate is immediately limited in whole or part Surrender to the Lord without expressing what use If a Surrender be made to the Lord in general without expressing to what use it shall be taken to the Lords use Kitch 81. And therefore in Bunting's Case cited in Brown and Foster's Case A Custom was That if any surrendred to the use of another without expressing any Estate that the Lord may grant it to him to whose use the Surrender was made It was adjudged a good Custom and the Lord shall ascertain the Estate A Copy-holder sold his Copy-hold Estate but shews not what Estate Or what Estate but surrendred it the use of the Bargainee and the Lord granted it in Fee to the Bargainee and it was adjudged good Cro. El. 392. Copy-holder in Fee surrendred his Lands into the hands of the Lord without saying to whose use the Surrender should be and at the next Court the said Copy-holder was admitted Habend to him and his Wife in Tayl And then admittance is to uses this subsequent act explains a Surrender remainder to his right Heirs Per Cur. The subsequent Act shall explain the Surrender and when the Copy-holder accepted a new Admittance the Law intends the Surrender was made to such an use as is specified in the Admittance Quando ab est provisio partis adest provisio Legis Popham p. 125 126. Brook's Case Cro. Jac. 434. mesme Case Copy-holder Surrenders to the use of M. and R. without limitation of any Estate they shall only have it for their Lives and in such case A Surrender to one for Life without limiting the Fee the Fee is in the Surrenderor if the Lord make Admittance and deliver Seisin to M. and R. and the Heirs of R. this was only an Admittance to them for term of their Lives the Reversion over to R. who made the Surrender for the Lord is but an Instrument and when he hath made Admittance according to the effect of the Surrender nothing remains in him but the Reversion is in the Surrenderer 4 Rep. 29. Bunting and Lepingwel But it is otherwise in the case of a Copy-holder for Life as if a Copy-holder for Life Surrender to the use of J. S. for Life and J. S. dyes this shall not revert to the first Copy-holder for Life Mich. 7. Car. 1. Diversity King and Loder's Case And therefore in Dyer 9 Eliz. f. 264. The Husband seized in the right of his Wife Reversion to B. Reversion to C. for their Lives the Husband surrrenders to the use of B. for his Life to whom the Lord grants it for his Life and is admitted and after dyes the Husband shall not have it again during his Wives Life for he had dismist himself of it Lord as Occupant and C. shall not have it during the Wives Life but the Lord as Occupant Where an Use is limited how far the Construction shall be according to the Rules of Common Law or not Some lay it down for a Rule That the same Construction which the Law makes upon words in a Deed it will make upon a Copy is not always true though regularly it is so As if Copy-hold be granted to a Corporation where no Estate is named it s a Fee-simple So if Surrender to one and his Heirs and he reciting this Surrender doth Surrender it to my use in the same manner as I surrendred it to him this is a Fee-simple So if I Surrender to J. S. as large an Estate as he hath in the Manor of Dale he hath a Fee-simple in that Manor Co. Cop. 132. The Wife shall take by the Admittance tho not named in the Premisses in the Surrender But a person may take by the Hab. in the Admittance who was not named in the Premisses as to Copy-hold therefore in Brook's Case above cited Copy-holder Surrenders his Lands without saying to whose use and at the next Court the said Copy-holder was Admitted Habend to him and to his Wife in Tayl the Remainder over Per Cur. the Wife shall take by this Admittance though she was not named in the Premisses But this Case of a Copy-hold is like to the Case of a Will or to the Case of a Frank-Marriage in which it is sufficient to pass an Estate albeit the Parties be only named in the Habendum aliter where the Surrender is to Uses and she is not named in the Premisses And the like Rule is laid down in Bunting and Lepingwel's Case 4 Rep. 29. As well Estates as Descents to be directed by the Rules of Law That as well Estates as Descents shall be directed by the Rules of Law as necessary consequents upon the Custom unless there be a special Custom to the contrary as a Surrender sibi suis by the Custom may make an Estate of Inheritance but a Surrender to one
Rep. 25 26. Where by the Custom Plaints have been made in the Court of the Manor in the nature of real Actions if such a Recovery be against Tenant in Tayl Copy-holder this shall be a Discontinuance and shall take away the Entry of the Heir in Tayl for they are warranted by Custom and it is an incident that the Law amounteth to the said Custom that such Recovery shall make a Discontinuance 4 Rep. 23. Deal and Rigden Discontinuance If a man seized of Copy-hold Land in right of his Wife surrender it to the Use of another in Fee who is admitted and the Husband dyes this is not any Discontinuance to the Wife nor to her Heirs but that she may enter and shall not be put to a cui in vita nor her Heir to a sur cui in vita 4 Rep. 23. Bullock and Dibler Yet Walmsly in Collins and Cranks Case Cro. Jac. 105. held it was a Discontinuance Quaere his Reason Surrender by Tenant Copy-holder in Tayl If Surrender make a Discontinuance makes not any Discontinuance except a special Custom be and then its a bar Vide prius and Cro. El. p. 148. Bulle's Case But in Cro. El. 717. Erishes Case That such a Surrender is a Discontinuance to put the Issue to his Action this being as strong as a Livery by Tenant in Tayl and the Alienee is in by the Tenant in Tayl though he comes in by Grant of the Lord 1 Leon. p. 95. Case 124. Knight and Footman there holden That the surrender of Copy-holder in Tayl to the Use of another in Fee doth not make any Discontinuance but the Issue in Tayl may enter and the Serjeants Case there cited to be so One under age surrenders and dyes having Issue A. A. may enter and shall not be put to his dum fuit infra aetatem 1 Leon. 95. Knights Case But it is setled That a Surrender makes not a Discontinuance Vide infra pres a pres A farther Discourse of what shall amount to a Discontinuance or not Vide hic Cap. supra If a Copy-holder in Tayl admitting it be an Entayl surrender to the Lord to make his Will and he re-grants this to the Copy holder this is not any Discontinuance although a Surrender to the Use of an Estranger should be admitted to be a Discontinuance for a surrender to the Lord may not make any Discontinuance forasmuch as he had the Reversion agreed upon Evidence at the Bar in Lee and Brown's Case Mich. 14 Jac. B. R. So a Surrender of a Copy-hold Entailed to certain Uses c. is no Discontinuance though the Court there said it had been a great Question but by a special Custom such surrender may be a Discontinuance Discontinuance to the Wife If the Husband seized of Copy-hold in the right of his Wife surrender this to the Use of another in Fee who is admitted accordingly Husband dyes this is not any Discontinuance to the Wife 4 Rep. 23. Bullock and Dibler's Case nor her Heirs but the Wife may enter and not be put to her cui in vita nor her Heir to a sur cui in vita A Discontinuance may be of a Copy-hold Entayl admitting it to be a Tayl as by a Recovery in a real Action in the Lords Court 4 Rep. 23 Deal's Case Quaere if it be not more properly a Bar for the time than a Discontinuance 1 Rolls Abr. 634. Morris's Case 44 Eliz. B. R. In Chard and Wyat's Case More n. 877. The Court were divided in Opinion whether a Surrender was a Discontinuance The Case was this A Copy-holder in Fee surrendred to the Use of his Will and having a Daughter born and his Wife with Child he devised by Will part of his Land to his Son or Daughter with which his Wife went haeredibus suis legitime procreat and the residue he devised to his Daughter born to have to her and the Fruit of her Body and if she dye without Fruit of her Body the same shall remain to the Child in the Mothers Belly and if both dye without Fruit then J. S. should sell the Land and willed the one Sister to be Heir to the other The Wife of the Devisor entred and was admitted and had a Daughter which afterward dyed the Mother took Husband and they surrendred Resolved 1st That this was a Fee Tayl in the Daughter 2ly That one in ventre sa mere could not take an Estate in possession by Purchase but in this Case she may take in Remainder But whether it were a Discontinuance the Court was divided but they all agreed a Copyhold may be Entayled by Custom and barr'd by Recovery by special Custom and yet in Moor n. 1087. afterwards it was adjudged a Surrender by a Tenant in Tayl of a Copy-hold was not a Discontinuance but by what is said before the Law is setled as to this point But to cite no more in this point where by Custom of the Manor Pleints have been made in the nature of real Actions That if a Recovery be in a Pleint in nature of a real Action against a Tenant Copy-holder in Tayl it s adjudged that this shall be a Discontinuance and shall take away the Entry of the Heir in Tayl for these Pleints are warranted by the Custom this is an incident which the Law annexeth to the said Custom 4 Rep. 23. Deal and Rigden CAP. XX. Of Leases of Copy-hold Estates Leases by the Lord and Rent reserved and his Remedy by Avowry And of Leases made by Copy-holders What is a Forfeiture or not When a Licence to make a Lease shall be said to be persued or not Commencement of a Lease Leases by whom made Bishop Tenant in Tayl. Infant Of Rents reserved What things are demisable by Copy Of Leases of Copy-hold Land Vide Title Customs as to Leases and Limitations of Estates supra Of Leases of Copy-hold Land made by the Lord Tenants 1. By the Lord and his Avowries and remedy for the Rent Lease of the Freehold of a Copy-hold THE Lord leaseth the Freehold of a Copy-hold to J. S. this is good betwixt J. S. and the Lord But the Lord cannot reserve the Rent upon such a Lease 1 Keb. 15. Gerrard's Case Custom A Custom That on payment of ten years Rent the Lord should Licence to let for 99 Years and if he refused the Tenant might do it without Licence was adjudged good and reasonable Grow and Bridges cited in 2 Keb. 344. Porphyry and Legingham If a man be seized of a Manor wherein are divers Copy-holders admittable for Life or for years Lord lets for Life he may Lease by Copy in Reversion to commence after the death of the first Copy-holder and he leaseth the Manor to another for term of Life the Lessor may make a Demise by Copy in Reversion to commence after the death of the first Copy-holder and that is good enough but the Custom of some Manors is to the contrary and that is
At the Court Baron of the Honour of Hampton J. S. and J. D. Tenants of the Honour of Hampton do present An Honour That J. R. did Surrender into the Hands of two Tenants of the Honour Per Jones This being a Court of the Honour and into the Hands of the Tenants of the Honour it s not good but by the other three Justices its good enough For Toddington being in the Margent it shall be said a distinct Court by it self For an Honour consisteth of many Manors yet all the Courts for the Manors are distinguished and have several Copyholders Cro. Car. 366. Seagood and Hone. Special Verdict was That Copy-holder of Inheritance bargained and sold his Copy-hold Land c. to the Lessee of the Manor and this was by Indenture and the Indenture was to this effect Verdict found not according to the Indenture That he bargained and sold all his Lands and Tenements as well Copy-holds as other Lands bought of John Culpepper in such a Town but it is not found by the Verdict nor averred by the Party That the Land was bought of John Culpepper and so ill Winch Rep. p. 67. Hasset and Hanson Custom not well found A Copy-holder of Inheritance made a Letter of Attorny to two Joyntly and severally to Surrender his Copy-hold Lands in Fee to certain Uses after his death but the Verdict doth not find that the two Attornies were custumary Tenants nor doth it appear that they were customary Tenants at the time of the Admittance and the primier possession will make a disseisin by the Defendant if the Custom be not well found It is not found that the two Attornies were customary Tenants but it was objected here is so much found as shall make it to be presumed that they were Tenants of the Manor for it is found that the party is admitted secundum consuetud Manerij which cannot be a good Admittance if they were not Tenants But Rolls answered to be admitted secundum consuetudinem goes to the Admittance not to the Letter of Attorny the Custom is not good neither is it found that the Land is demisable at the will of the Lord c. and so it may be free Land and the Custom reaches it not Stiles p. 311. Wallis and Bucknal The Plaintiff entitles himself to have Common of Pasture c. to his Copy-hold and the Custom was traversed it was found he ought to have the same Common but that every Copy-holder used to pay time out of mind c. pro ead communia unam gallinam quinque ova annuatim upon this Verdict the Plaintiff shall have Judgment Failure of Custom found this is not a common sub modo for the Ter-Tenant had remedy for the Hen and Eggs by distress and it is not parcel of the Issue but had the Jury found that the Plaintiff shall have Common paying so many Hens and Eggs the Issue had been against him and it had been parcel of the Custom it s not Modus Communiae but collateral recompence One prescribes to carry Water out of the River the Jury find he ought to have this paying 6 d. yearly Failure of Prsecription found Per Cur. he hath failed of his Prescription for he had prescribed absolutely and the Jury found it conditionally or sub modo and the Ter-Tenant in this Case hath no remedy but by disturbance 5 Rep. 68. Gray's Case If the Issue be whether Jury must find directly and not argumentatively where a Copy-hold is granted to three for the Lives of two he who dies seized c. ought to pay an Harriot Custom and the Jury find there never was a Grant of such Estate within the said Manor This is not well found for this is but an argument that no Harriot ought to be paid but they ought to have found it directly M. 15 Jac. B. R. Ven and Howel If the Issue be whether by the Custom of the Manor a Copy-hold may be granted to three for the Life of two and they find that by the Custom it may be granted for three Lives this is not well found because it is only by Argument because if a greater Estate may be granted a lesser may be So if the Issue be whether a Copy-hold may be granted in Tail and they find it may be granted in Fee mesme Case What shall be intended by the Juries finding if c. then for the Plaintiff Special Verdict upon a Patent from King H. 8. which Patent was adjudged void to pass the Estate the Jury find if it were a good Patent then for the Defendant if otherwise they find for the Plaintiff It is intended there is a sufficient Title found for the Plaintiff unless by this Patent it be defeated If Jury be satisfied the Plaintiff hath Title the Court ought not to doubt thereof so that if the Jury be satisfied that the Plaintiff hath any good Right by any other manner of Title the Court ought not to doubt thereof and so is Goodal's Case 5 Rep. 97. Cro. Car. 21. Castle and Hobbs Custom was pleaded by the Defendant That if a Copy-holder in Fee hath a Wife at the time of his death and two Sons or more that the Wife shall have her Free-Bench during her Life and that if the eldest Son dye living the Wife though he hath Issue his Issue shall not have it Custom must be found in the manner that he pleads it but the second Son The Jury found the Custom that the youngest Son should have it unless the eldest Son was admitted thereto as to the Reversion or made a Fine for it with the Lord in his Life-time Per Cur. The Custom is not found in that manner that he pleaded it therefore it is found against him that pleaded it for he pleaded a general Custom without exception and the Custom found is with an exception and special as the Case is in Dyer 192. Where a Custom was pleaded That a Feme should have it and it was found she should have it Verdict not aptly concluded durante viduitate but in this Case there was not any Verdict upon this Issue for they concluded their Verdict Si c. they found the Defendant guilty if otherwise not guilty and so there is not any conclusion of the point in Issue Per Cur. a gross fault and a Venire Facias de novo was awarded Cro. El. 415. Boraston and Hay In Trespass the Plaintiff in his Replication makes Title That this Land is parcel of the Manor of D. and demisable c. by Copy in Fee in Tail for Life or years c. and the Land was let to him by Copy in Fee Substance found the Prescription was traversed and found that it was demisable c. in Fee but never in Tail and that it was granted to the Plaintiff in Fee this was found for the Plaintiff for the Allegation That the Land was demisable in Fee or in Tail
The nature and effect of a Presentment 139 Two Surrender and the second Surrender is first presented 140 What will make a possessio fratris so as to inherit a Copy-hold Priviledges of Copy-hold 18 19 20 R. Popish Recusant shall forfeit all his Copy-hold Land within 25 El. c. 10. 253 Copy-hold Rents apportioned 188 Action of Debt lyes not for Arrears of Rent within the Statute 32 H. 8. 250 One Lease of Freehold and Copy-hold the Rent issues out of both 187 Avowry for Rent by Lessee of a Copy-holder 262 S. Steward 75 Deputy acts done by him or his Servant shall be good so by a reputed Steward 76 77 Infant cannot be a Steward 77 Surrender 95 The nature of a Surrender ib. Where and in what respects Estates may pass otherwise than by Surrender 99 The Lord not compellable to make a Surrender 49 Where Surrender is sufficient without Admittance 102 Where Admittance is sufficient without Surrender 102 103 Of Surrenderss out of Court who may take them and what are good or not 105 In whom the Reversion after a particular Estate remains 104 Surrender by Attorny and form of the Entry 107 108 What shall pass and by what words in a Surrender 109 Construction of a Surrender where no use is limitted 110 Surrender passeth no Estate by Implicacition Where an Use is limitted in a Surrender how far the construction shall be according to the Rule of the Common Law 113 Surrender to an Use upon an Use ibid. Surrender to the Use of ones Wife 13 125 Where a Surrender is void for uncertainty 113 Surrender to the Use of a person not in esse 115 to the Use of one in ventre sa mere 116 Of a Surrender to take effect in futuro ibid. Construction of Surrenders and limitations in Remainder or Reversion 118 119 If a Surrender makes a discontinuance 217 Surrender to the Use of a Mans last Will and how to be construed 124 Surrenders upon condition or contingency 120 221 122 129 Where a Surrender before Admittance shall be good and where not 130 Surrender by Husband of the Wifes Land Surrender by Joynt-Tenants 127 131 Surrender by a Feme Covert 133 Surrender of the Wives Land 134 Surrender to the Steward to the Use of the Steward is good ibid. Countermand of a Surrender 135 What remedy to force a Trustee to surrender 135 Surrender not good till presented 136 Heir decreed to Surrender on Contract with the Ancestor 327 Relief in equity as to Surrender 323 Defendant decreed to Surrender according to Agreement ibid. hold shall not be extended 237 If the Copy-holder bind himself in a Statute the Copy Within what Statutes of Parliament Copy-hold Lands are contained and within what not 247 c. Services not to be performed by Attorny T. How Copy-holds are Entayl'd and how dockt and barred 165 166 c. How the Statute VV. 2. creates an Estate Tayl 166 167 In what cases Trespass may be brought by the Copy-holder against his Lord 257 Trespass by a Copy-holder for Beasts depasturing on the Common 260 Tryal The time of the Surrender or of the Courts being held to be tryed by the Jury and not by the Court-Rolls 307 When Issue is taken upon a Surrender where to be tryed 310 Traversing the day of the Grant Traversing the dying seized of the Copy-hold 246 205 Where a particular Custom is confessed in the Rejoynder he ought to Traverse the general Custom 228 V. Copy-hold not determined or forfeited by Utlawry Special Verdict 311 Custom not well found 312 Failer of Prescription 313 Jury must find directly and not argumentatively ib. Custom must be found in the manner that he pleads it 314 Verdict aided 318 Statute 27 H. 8. of Uses extends not to Copy-hold 252 Venue 310 VV. Surrender to the Use ef a Man's last Will 115 Copy-hold devised without Surrender executed by decree in Chancery 326 Customs as to Woods Underwoods 58 What Copy-holders may cut Trees and in what cases and to what purposes Custom to sell Trees 58 Copy-hold Lands are not within the Words of the Statute 34 H. 8.5 of Wills Quaere If within the Equity 253 A TABLE OF THE Precedents A Settlement before Marriage of a Copy-hold Estate where according to the Custom of the Manor there is a dead Year after the death of every Tenant grantable by the Tenant in his Life-time and his Widow enjoys the Estate durante castitate if he surrender or alien it not in his Life-time with permission That the Goods of the Wife shall remain at her disposal and that her Husbands name may be made use of to sue for her Debts but the Monies to be secured by the Trustees to her use 329 Covenant to Surrender Copy-hold Land after bargain and sale of Free-hold 334 Covenant that he is rightfully seized of Copy-hold Land 335 A Covenant to surrender Copy-hold Lands ibid. A Covenant in nature of a Mortgage upon a Surrender of Copy-hold Land to pay mony at a certain time 337 A Bargain and Sale of Copy-hold Lands by Commissioners of Bankrupts 339 A Surrender in Trust and the Trust declared Trustees covenant not to commit c. any thing that may amount to a Forfeiture 342 An Infranchisement of Copy-hold Lands made by a Lord of a Manor to his Copy-holder 344 A Lease of Copy-hold Land with the Lords Licence 348 A Release of Copy-hold Estate 350 Precedents of Copies of Court Rolls Presentments Surrenders Admittances Releases Proclamations for not coming in c. A Surrender 253 A Surrender of Copy-hold Lands for Life the Remainder in Fee taken by the Steward out of Court 355 A Surrender out of Court of a Reversion to the use of a Man and his Wife and the Heirs of the Body of the Husband the Remainder to the Heirs of the Body of the Wife the Remainder to the Husband of the present Tenant for Life in Tayl the Remainder to the present Tenant for Life in Tayl the Remainder to another in Fee with the Lords acknowledgment of satisfaction of a Fine The Surrendror surrenders all his Right c. to the Husband and Wife the present Tenant for Life to the Uses aforesaid 356 After abatement and intrusion the Lord seiseth the Lands and grants them to the Abator for term of Life the Remainder to the next Heir of the Disseisee in Tayl remainder in Fee 358 Surrender out of Court to several Uses upon a Marriage Settlement 360 Presentment of a Surrender made in Court with the Admittance of the Tenant next Heir 361 The finding the death of a Tenant and of the Lands and Heir with the Admission of the Tenant and a Presentment made in Court between the Heir and his Mother touching her Dower and the Mothers Release of her Dower 362 Presentment of the Copy-hold Customs of a Manor 376 367 Surrender by Baron and Feme 369 Surrender to the Use of ones last Will 370 Grant of the wardship of a Tenant ibid. Surrender of right Title and Interest
pleading we say such Lands or Tenements are demised and demisable A tempore cujus contrarij memoria hominum non existit And yet this Rule fails in the Kings Case vide supra It was said by Rolls Chief Justice in Pilkington and Bagshaw's Case Stiles 450. That a Custom cannot be urged for a thing that had its beginning since the time of Richard 1. if a Record can be shewed to the contrary But what measure of time shall make a Custom many differ Some judge it from the time of Henry 1. to the Stat. of Merton Cap. 8. which appointeth the Limitation in a Writ of Right and others say otherwise And by the Statute W. 1. the Limitation was from the time of R. 1. and these are Limitations as to Writs but this is since altered by 32 H. 8. What shall be said time out of memory which is reduced to sixty years next before the Teste of the Writ But the true measure is Littleton's Rule Where a Custom hath been used so long that man's Memory cannot remember the contrary that is when such a thing is pleaded that no man then living hath heard or known any proof to the contrary for if there be any sufficient proof of Record or Writing to the contrary albeit it exceed the memory of any man living yet it is within the memory of man and therefore regularly a man cannot prescribe or alledge a Custom against a Statute for that is the highest Record but affirmative Acts do not take away a Custom If Land hath been demised by Copy for fifty years and yet some alive remember the same occupied by Indenture this is not a good Copy hold And if Land hath been demised by 40 years by Copy and none alive can remember the same to be otherwise demised this is a good Copy But sixty or eighty or an hundred years may make a good Limitation Calthrop's Reading Coke Lit. 114 115. 2. Continuance Custom ought to have continuance without interruption time out of memory for if it be discontinued time out memory the Custom is gone As if a Copy-hold be let by the Lord for life or for years according to the course of the Common Law it shall never be demised as Copy-hold according to the Custom afterwards Consuetudo semel reprobata non potest amplius induci and as Continuance makes the Custom so discontinuance destroys it The Continuance for fifty years is enough to fasten customary Conditions upon the Land against the Lord And per Cur. Though the original Commencement and the customary Interest did commence 10 H. 8. from which time sixty years passed yet the seizure for a Forfeiture in the mean time interrupted utterly the Continuance from the time which might by the Law have perfected the customary Interest What shall be said an interruption of a customary Estate or not Within the time of forty seven years a customary Interest cannot be Attached upon the Land 3 Leon. 107. Tavernor and Cromwel If the Lord of a Manor is seized of an ancient Copy-hold for Forfeiture or by Escheat and let the same at Will without Copy for divers years this is not any interruption of the customary nature of the Land but that he may grant it again by Copy Ibid. Interruption If customary Land hath been of ancient time grantable in Fee and now of late times for the space of forty years the Lord hath granted the same for Life only yet he may if he please resort to his ancient Custom and grant it in Fee 1 Leon. p. 56. Kemp and Carter Customary Land within a Manor hath been grantable in Fee and it Escheats the Lord may grant the same to another for Life for the Custom which enables him to grant in Fee shall enable him to grant for Life and after the death of Tenant pur vie the Lord may grant the same again in Fee for the grant for Life was not any interruption of the Custom 1 Leon. 56. id Case 3. Certainty Custom ought to be certain for incerta pro nullis habentur 13 Ed. 3. Fitzh dum fuit infra aetatem 3. A Writ of Dum fuit infra aetatem was brought against an Infant the Tenant pleads a Custom That when the Infant is within such an Age as that he may count twelve Pence or measure an Ell of Cloth that then his Feoffment shall be good this Custom is adjudged void for the incertainty Why an uncertain Custom shall be void Now the Reasons why an uncertain Custom shall be void are 1. Because an uncertain thing may not be continued time out of memory 2. A man cannot prescribe in a thing which may not at the beginning be well granted and an uncertain thing cannot well commence by Grant And if Tenants of a Manor prescribe that they ought not to pay for a Fine to renew their Copy-hold Estates more than the Rent of two years but ought to pay the Rent for two years or less this is not a good Prescription for the uncertainty for sometimes they are to pay two years Rent and sometimes less 2 Rolls Abridg. 264 265. Green and Berry 4. Reason Custom must be reasonable therefore it must not be against common Right or purely against the Law of the Land as is Littleton's Case The Lord prescibes That there hath been a Custom within his Manor that every Tenant who marries his Daughter without Licence of the Lord shall make Fine c. This Prescription is void it is against the freedom of a Freeman who is not bound thereto by particular Tenure Alit if it be upon a special Reservation of Gift of Lands or Tenure in Villanage Lit. Sect. 209. So in Sect. 212. To prescribe that the Lord of the Manor hath used to distrain Cattel Damage feasant and to retain the Distress till Fine were made to him for the Damages at his will This Prescription is void for it s against reason a man should be Judge in his own Cause If the Lord will prescribe to have of every Copy-holder belonging to his Manor for every Court he keepeth a certain Sum of Mony this is a void Prescription because it is not according to common Right for he ought to do it gratis for Justice sake But if the Lord Prescribe to have a certain Fee of his Tenants for keeping an extraordinary Court which is purchased only for the benefit of some particular Tenants to take up their Copy-holds and such like this is a good Prescription and according to common Right Coke Cop. 81. But now to distinguish what Customs are unreasonable and what not observe these differences Every Custom is not unreasonable which is contrary to a particular Rule or Maxim of the positive Law For its a Rule Consuetudo ex certa causa rationabili privat communem Legem As the Customs of Gavel-kind and Burrough English are against the Maxim of descent of Inheritance and the Maxim of Escheat as in Kent the Father to the Bough and
or of the nature of Gavel-kind c. but by common intendment they may not have a lawful commencement by Grant or Agreement but by Act of Parliament Gatward's Case 6 Rep. So 4 Rep. 32. in Foyston's Case Prescription is personal and is always made in the name of a person certain and his Ancestors or of those whose Estate he hath But Custom is local and alledged in no person but that within a Manor c. is such a Custom and this shall serve for those which cannot Prescribe in their own name nor in the name of a person certain In Gateward's Case 6 Rep. Defendant justifies in Trespass by Custom That all the Inhabitants in such an Ancient Messuage within the Vill of D. ratione commorationis have used to have common of Pasture in loco in quo c. this is ill pleaded for in this word Inhabitants are included Tenants in Fee for Life Years by Elegit at Will and also he that hath no Interest but Habitation only Now Tenant in Fee ought to Prescribe in his own Name Tenant in Fee in whose name to Prescribe in whose name others and the others which have Interest in the name of the Lord and he that hath no Interest cannot have Common But there is no one that hath an Interest be he Tenant at Will but by good Pleading he may enjoy it Now Copy-holder in Fee or for Life may by Custom of the Manor have Common in the Demesns of the Lord of the Manor but then he ought to alledge the Custom of the Manor to be Quod quilibet tenens customar cujuslibet anti qui Mesuagii Custumarii c. How a Copy-holder shall plead and not Quod quilibet Inhabitans infra aliquod antiquum Mesuag Custumar c. And a Prescription for the Inhabitants to be discharged of Tythes by a Modus or Freemen of London to be discharged of Wharfage c. must be pleaded by way of Custom When a thing must be pleaded by way of Custom and when by way of Prescription and not by way of Prescription because the Inhabitants or Freemen cannot Prescribe in their persons and therefore are allowed to lay a Custom for their Discharge and the nature of the things is not changed but remains still a Prescription in his kind though it be allowed to be pleaded by way of Custom for necessity sake And in Gateward's Case a thing lying properly in Prescription as Common did in that Case being an Interest which must inhere in some body Common for Copy-holders in the Lords Soyl must be pleaded by a Custom in the Soyl of another by Prescription cannot be pleaded by way of Custom as there they would have made it for Inhabitants that are not permanent to Prescribe but yet Common for Copy-holders in the Lords Soyl is allowed to be pleaded by Custom for necessities sake whereas in the Soyl of another it must be laid by Prescription in the Lord and yet the nature of both is a Prescription but a matter of discharge may be laid by way of Custom for that is not an Interest but an Exemption thus that great man my Lord Hobart p. 86. in Day and Savage his Case My Lord Coke in the Argument of Rowls and Mason's Case makes four differences between Prescription and Custom 1. In the beginning pugnant ex diametro for nothing may be good by Prescription but that which may have beginning by Grant 2. Prescription is incident to the Person and Custom to some Place and holds place in many Cases which cannot be by Grant As Lands may be devised by Custom So Gavel-kind and Burrough English c. which cannot have their beginning by Grant But Prescription and Custom are Brothers and ought to have the same Age and Reason ought to be the Father and Congruence the Mother and Use the Nurse and Time out of Memory to Fortifie them both 3. They vary in Quality for Prescription is for one man only and Custom for many if all but one be not dead 4. They vary in Extent and Latitude for Prescription extends to Fee-simple only but Custom extends to all Interests and Estates whatsoever as appears by the Pleading Prescription that a Copy-holder of Inheritance may sell the Trees is not good but such a Custom is good Tenant in Tayl for Life or Years cannot Prescribe in a Que Estate nor against the Lord in his Demesns Who may prescribe in a Que Estate or not but they ought to alledge the Custom and against a Stranger they ought to Prescribe in the name of the Lord 2 Brownl 198. In a Manor the Custom was That every Copy-holder for Life had Estovers for Fuel c. in the customary Lands Now if the Lord aliens the Woods c. in Fee and after Grant Copy-hold Lands and Houses for Lives the Grantees shall have Common of Estovers Pasture c. notwithstanding the Severance but after such Severance of the Waste or Woods Common is due to the Copy-holder notwithstanding Severance by the Lord and how to be pleaded the Copy-holder when he would entitle himself to Common or Estovers the Copy-holder shall not plead generally Quod infra Manerium praed talis habetur c. consuetudo c. for after the Severance this Waste or Wood is not within the Manor but absolutely divided from it but he shall plead That until such a time viz. before the Severance Talis habebatur a toto tempore c. consuetudo c. and then shew the Severance as in Murrel's Case 4 Rep. So he must do where the Lord aliens the Freehold and Inheritance of the Copy-holder Swain's Case 8 Rep. 2. It is said a Prescription goeth to one man and a Custom to many 1 Brownl Rep. 133. in Rowls and Mason and yet in Foystons Case 4 Rep. the Custom for Common may be applied to one single Copy-holder 3. The Allegation of a Custom shall serve when it is referred to a thing insensible as that such Lands are devisable c. Foystons Case There is nothing more common than for the Lord to Prescribe for his Tenants by Copy in another mans Land whereas if it be laid in his own it shall ever be laid by Custom Hobart p. 286. Roberts and Young There is a difference between a Prescription for Freehold Land and for Copy-hold Land for Custom which concerneth Freehold Difference between a Prescription for Freehold Land and for Copy-hold Land ought to be throughout the County and cannot be in a particular place 45 Ass but Precription concerning Copy-hold Land is good in one particular Cro. El. p. 353. Taverner and Cromwel 4. A Prescription must be in a thing done and not in posse therefore a Custom that Quaelibet femina vira cooperta poterit devisare her Copy-hold Inheritance to her Husband is not good 3 Leon. 83. Skipwith's Case To Customs and Prescriptions these two things are inseparable Incidents viz. Possession or Usage Interruption
concessis al 2. pro vitis in reversione Co. Entr. 184. Paying Fine and renewing Leases The Custom was That the Land was demiseable for twenty one years paying the treble value of the Rent and if he dyed within the Term that the Term should be to his Heir paying a Fine certain of one years Rent and if he Assigned the Term the Assignee should have it paying for a Fine one years value of the Rent and he who had it might by the Custom renew it for twenty one years paying three years value and this was admitted to be a good Custom by the Court Croke Jac. p. 671. Page's Case To assign one to take the Profits of a Copy-holder Infant The Custom was The Lord of a Manor might assign one to take the Profits of a Copy-hold descended to an Infant during his non-Age to the use of the Assignee without rendring an account it was held to be a good Custom as a Rent granted to one and his Heirs to cease during the non-Age of every Heir and admitting the Custom were void yet an Action of Account lyes not Prochein Amy. for the Defendant hath not entred and taken the Profits as Prochein Amy in which case although he was not Prochien Amy he is chargable as Prochein Amy according to his Claim but here he claimeth by the Custom and Grant of the Lord and not in the Right of the Heir 1 Leon. p. 266. Case 357. Anonymus The Custom was The Lord to dispose the Estate when the Tenant leaves it in incertainty That if any one surrender to the use of another without expressing any Estate that the Lord may grant it in Fee to him to whose use the surrender was made it s a good Custom for he is a Chancellor in his own Court to dispose thereof when the Tenant leaves it uncertain Crok El. 392. Brown and Foster Custom in the Manor of Sedgly in Com. Staff was Lease to be void if Copy-holder dye within the year If a Copy-holder make a Lease without Licence of the Lord for one year and dyes within the term it shall be void against the Heir Per Cur. it s a good Custom for then the Lord may know his Tenant and the Tenant may have the Estate and pay his Fine It s void by the act of God but had the Custom been That if a Copy-holder within the year surrender his Copy-hold that the Lease shall be void this is an unreasonable Custom Lit. Rep. 233. Hutton 126 127. Turner and Hodges Custom To Lease without Licence That five Copy-holders without License they being seized in Fee may make any Lease for one year or many years and when they dye the term shall cease and the Heir may enter it s a good Custom Hutton p. 101. Custom To hold after the term ended That a Lessee for years may hold the Land for half an year after the term ended it s no good Custom More n. 27. Not to alien without Licence Custom That a Copy-holder shall not alien without Licence is good for it may have a lawful commencement by agreement To Lease without Licence A Custom That on payment of a years Rent the Lord should Licence to let for 99 years and if he refused the Tenant might do it without Licence adjudged a good and reasonable Custom Grove and Bridges cited in Porphyry and Legingham's Case 2 Keb. 344. For Lessee pur vie to let for another mans Life A Custom That Lessee for Life may let for another man's Life is no good Custom but the Lord may by Custom Lease the same for Life and forty years after More n. 27. To commit a forfeiture and so to bar the Intayl A Custom for a Copy-holder tenant in tayl to make a Lease for years without Licence to commit a Forfeiture on purpose to bar the Intayl and to transfer the Lands over to any other person is a good Custom and is but in the nature of a Surrender or Common Recovery 2 Saunders 422. Grantham and Coples And the Lord in such cases may not admit any other but him to whom it is appointed by the Tenant making such Forfeiture and when such Cesty que use is admitted he shall avoid all mean acts or dispositions made by the Lord as well as upon a Surrender and this though he was not admitted in the life of the Tenant so forfeiting Vide infra Tit. Intayling Copy-holders In respect of Discents The Manor of Wadhurst in Com. Sussex consisted of two sorts of Copy-hold viz. Sookland and Bondland and by several Customs in several Manors as if a man be first admitted to Sookland and afterwards to Bondland and dyes seized of both his Heir shall inherit both but if he be first admitted to Bondland and afterwards to Sookland and of them dye seized his youngest Son shall Inherit 1 Leon. p. 36. Kemp and Carter A. Seized of Copy-hold in Fee Copy-hold Burrough English in the nature of Burrough-English surrenders this into the Hands of the Lord ea intentione That he shall re-grant this to him and his Wife and to the Heirs of himself and the Lord re-grants this accordingly And there is a Custom That if any person seised in Fee of such customary Lands and dyes so seized that the Land shall descend filio juniori c. And A. having Issue three Sons and ten years after his death the youngest Son dyes in the Life of his Mother without Issue Per Jones and Crook The elder Brother shall have this as Heir to the youngest and not the middle Brother Custom not to extend to Collateral Descents for the Custom may not extend to a collateral Descent viz. to direct the Descent amongst the Brothers for this is out of the Custom and the Custom was once satisfied by Descent to the youngest and there is an end of the Custom and where Custom fails Common Law shall guide the Descent Where Custom fails Common Law guides the Descent And by this special Custom he which is youngest Son at the death of the Father shall have the Land and not he which comes to be youngest afterwards but Bramston and Berkly contra 1 Rolls Abr. 624. Reeve and Malster Vide Maxims of Copy-holds supra CAP. VI. Customs of a Manor as to Wives and Widows of Copy-holders What are good and what not As also of Tenancy per le Curtesie And where the Severance of the customary Tenants from the Manor shall not prejudice CUstom of Manors That Husbands shall be Tenant per le Curtesie and the Pleading More 171. Custom of a Manor is That the Wife shall have it during her Life and on Evidence it appears the Custom was she should have it durante viduitate this Evidence doth not maintain the Custom because it is a less Estate Cok. 4. Rep. 30. That the Wife of a Copy-holder for Life may hold it durante viduitate was agreed to be a good Custom
and so the Custom of Taunton-Dean That if a Copy-holder in Fee marries a Wife If the Wife survives she shall have the Fee if the Wife survives she shall have the Fee sic e converso agreed to be good Noy Rep. p. 2. There can be no Dower nor Tenancy by the Curtesie of the Copy-hold unless by special Custom 1 Anderson 292. Lease made before admittance A man may be Tenant by the Curtesie by Custom Though the Husband enter into the Land in the right of the Wife before admittance and the Wife dyes before admittance his Lease shall be good 1 Anderson 192. Ewer and Astwick It was admitted by the Court to be a good Custom That an Executor or Administrator shall have an year in the Land of the Copy-holder Custom that the Executor shall have an year in the Copy-hold against the Wife that claims her Free-Bench Noy p. 29. Remington and Cole If a Woman be Dowable of Copy-hold by Custom if the Husband after the marriage makes a Lease for years good by the Custom Tenant in Dower shall not avoid a Lease made by the Husband the Tenant in Dower shall not avoid it but it shall precede the Dower More n. 147. Holder and Fairly For he comes under the Custom as well as the Feme The Custom of a Manor was Quod quilibet tenens per Copiam poterit dimittere terras suas pur vie or in Fee or in Tayl Custom that the Wife Feme covert may Devise and that a Woman cooperta viro poterit devisare her Copy-hold Land to her Husband or to any other by the assent of her Husband Per Cur. The Custom is not unreasonable But because it was poterit devisare which is a word of justification and it should have been usi sunt devisare by way of excuse it was adjudged against the Plaintiff More n. 268. And so was one Welsh's Case in C. B. 41 El. 3 Leon. p. 81. Skipwith's Case The Custom was That Widows should enjoy during their Widow-hood Where the severance of the customary Tenants from the Manor shall not prejudice the Widow in her customary Estate The Lord Grants a customary Tenement of the Manor unto J. B. for Life by Copy and after conveys the whole Manor to W. who conveyed the Inheritance and Free-hold of B's Tenement for mony paid by B. to J. S. and others and their Heirs during the Life of J. B. the remainder to Ellen then Wife of J. B. the remainder to J. B. in Fee J. B. Grants his remainder in Fee to his Son and his Heirs The Son having Issue a Son dyed and then Ellen dyed J. B. marries Frances and dyes seized of his customary Estate Frances shall enter and enjoy her Widows Estate for it is clear That the customary Estate of J. B. remained as it was during his Life not extinct nor altered by the purchase of the Fee-simple which during his Life was in others not in him and then it follows by consequence That all customary Incidents to such a customary Estate remain whereof this is one which by Custom and Law grows of it self out of that Estate as a Descent should have done if J. B. had been a Copy-holder in Fee and the Freehold had been granted to another in Fee Hobart p. 181. Howard and Bartlet It is not in the power of the Lord to destroy Widows Estates By the severance Incidents to the Tenancy are not destroyed but Incidents to the Seigniory are The Law vests the Estate in a Woman that is to hold durante viduitate before admittance The Custom is That a Woman shall hold durante viduitate she shall make a Lease before admittance for in that case there is no Fine due to the Lord and the Law vests the Estate in her Noy 29. Remington and Cole Hobart 181. Vide Admittance The Lord Enfeoffs the Copy-holder this destroys Free-Bench A Custom of a Manor was found to be That if a Copy-holder in Fee dyes seized his Wife should hold it during her Life as Free-Bench the Lord Enfeoffs the Copy-holder who dyed seized Per Cur. she shall not hold her Free-Bench aliter if the Lord had enfeoffed a Stranger of that Land yet the Land remained Copy-hold and the Custom is not taken away Crok Jac. 126. Lashmer and Avery Damages recovered in Dower A Woman recovered Dower in the Lords Court and 40 l. because her Husband dyed seized and she brought Debt for the Damages in the Kings-Bench Per Cur. The Action lyes not because the Court-Baron could not hold Plea nor award Execution of 40 l. Damages although the Damages were there well assessed More n. 559. If a Feme Copy-holder holds the Land durante viduitate and then takes Husband the Lord shall have the Corn Oland's Case Vide Emblements The Widows customary Estate is due to her Divorce though there was a Divorce a mensa thoro Hobart p. 181. Howard and Bartlet Tenant of a Copy-hold for Life Whether the Widow attaint for Felony shall have her Estate of viduity in which the Custom was That the Wife should have her Widows Estate and the Husband was attaint of Felony and Executed The Question was whether she should have it Winch not without a special Custom Winch Rep. 27. Allen and Branch That the Wife shall not have her Dower The Wife to claim her Dower within a year and day except she claim it within a year and a day it s said to be a good Custom 3 Leon. p. 226. Pleadings Custom Quod Uxores habeant Tenementa custumaria durante viduitate sua Dyer 192. 3 Br. 403 476. Hern 73. Quod Uxores Tenen custumar in feodo habeant pro vita Tenementa unde viri obierunt seisita Et si viri dimiser tunc revers reddit Cok. Ent. 123. CAP. VII Custom as to Timber Woods and Vnder-Woods and what Prescription by a Copy-holder to cut Trees shall be good or not TEnant by Copy of Court Roll cannot by the Common Law take Trees for House-bote Hedge-bote and Cart-bote c. as Tenant for Life or Years may do who have an Estate certain but a Copy-holder by special Custom may do it Cro. El. p. 5. Lord Mountague against Sheppard Where a Custom was alledged to be That every Copy holder may cut down Trees at his pleasure this Custom is against Common Law Winch p. 1. If a Custom be That a Copy-holder may not cut down Trees it is good or not good with this difference If he be a Copy-holde of Inheritance such a Custom is good but if he be a Copy-holder for Life its noâ— good 1 Bulstr 150. Earl of Northumberlanâ— against Wheeler The Tenant prescribes to câ—â— and dispose all the Trees upon his Tenancy its an ill Prescription Aliter of a Copy-holde of Inheritance Noy p. 2. So it is adjudged it 1 Rolls Abr. 650. Glascock and Peche It s a good Custom Copy-holder in Fee
may cut Trees and sell them by Custom That Copy-holder in Fee may cut Trees and sell them at his pleasure aliter 〈◊〉 a Copy-holder for Life Rook and Higgins's Case Ibid. Queen Eliz. Seized of the Manor of H. i◠Fee demiseth the same to J. W. except Omnibus boscis subboscis arboribus maremiis c Habend for twenty one years He 35 Eliz. Assigns his Interest to J. P. and others Queen Eliz. dyes King James grants to F. S. and W. reversionem praed ac premissa sic ut prefertur except to them and their Heirs the Lessees Attorn afterwards F. and W. by Deed release to S. and his Heirs And at a Court held by the Lessees their Steward grants by Copy to W. B. Def. certain of these Copy-hold Lands on which Oaks and Ashes grew for term of Life secundum consuetudinem Manerij and that there is such a Custom That every Copy-holder Tenant for Life used to take all Trees growing upon his Copy-hold to be employed for Fuel Bounds Fences Grantee by voluntary Grant shall have Trees though they are severed by an Exception The doubt was in as much as the said Lessees hold the Court by virtue of the said Lease of the Manor out of which Lease the said Trees were excepted if the Tenant may shroud them c. Per Cur. 1. Notwithstanding the Severance by the Exception and notwithstanding the Tenant comes in by Voluntary Grant for Life yet such Grantee shall have the Estovers for the Estate of the Copy-hold is not derived out of the Lord And so though the Waste be aliened in Fee by the Lord and so severed who is but an Instrument and though the Grant be new yet the Title to the Copy-hold is ancient 2. When the Copy-holders for Life have used to have Common or Waste or Estovers or any other Profit apprender and afterwards the Lord alien the Waste Woods c. in Fee and after grant certain Copy-hold Houses and Lands for Lives such Grantees shall have Estovers c. notwithstanding the Severance for the Title of Copy-hold is paramount the Severance 8 Rep. Swain's Case 63 64. 2 Brownl 231. mesme Case Vide infra What 's included by Timber Trees If a Copy-holder by the Custom cut down Timber-Trees for reparations he shall have the Trees Lop Top and Bark and though he cannot repair with the Tops and Bark yet he may sell them towards defraying the charge in repairing 3 Bulstr 281. Sandford and Stephens Where Copy-holder by Custom may not Fell and Sell Trees but take the Shrouds of the Trees for Fuel if the Copy-holder by force of the Custom shrouds the Trees and the Lord takes the Body of the Trees Copy-holder may bring Action of the Case against him Goswell's Case cited in Ford and Hoskins Case Rolls Rep. 196. To cut Timber for repairs to what that extends The Custom is for Copy-holders of Inheritance to cut Timber for Repairs he nor his Lessee cannot employ Trees fell'd with the Wind to any such use in regard that hereby his special property ceaseth much less can Lessee or Copy-holder for Life by any such Custom take Trees 1 Keb. 690. Custom for the Copy-holder to cut down all the Trees Copy-holder for Life by the Custom hath power to name a Successor such Copy-holder may cut and sell all the Trees growing upon the Copy-hold A bare Tenant for Life cannot be warranted by Custom to do such an act Powel and Peacock's Case yet here he had a greater Estate than for Life for he hath power to make another Estate for Life 2 Brownl p. 192. Rolls and Mason In this Case which was well argued by the Judges in 2 Brownl 195. There were two Customs 1. That a Copy-holder for Life may name his Successor 2. That such Copy-holder may cut down all the Trees growing upon the Copy-hold Lands The first Custom was adjudged good and reasonable and the second was adjudged void Copy-holder may justifie cutting Boughs for House-bote Hedge-bote Cart-bote c. To sell Trees 2 Brownl p. 329. Heydon and Smith But Tenant by Copy of Court Roll cannot make Waste nor cut Trees to sell but for his benefit in repairing his House If a Copy-holder for Life cuts down Timber Trees the Lord may take them 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. A Copy-holder may prescribe to have the Toppings of Trees for Fire-bote and Hedge-bote Uncertain Pleading but the Prescription was to cut ramos aliquarum arborum which is uncertain if omnium arborum it had been well Noy p. 14. Cross and Abbot Presidents of Customs as to cutting Wood and Trees Quod tenentes custumarii mes habuer communiam estoveriorum in solo alterius solvendum annuatim 2d Dyer 363. Quod tenentes custumar in feodo succidant arbores ad libitum Cok. Entr. 284. Ub. 130. Simile 1. Br. 252. Quod tenentes custumarii amputent pollingers 13 Rep. 67. Quod tenen custumar repararent sepes in t terras custumar boscum per lignum capiend in bosco 1 Leon. 313. Quod tenentes custumarii usi fuer amputare arbores pro sepiment focali succidere arbores pro reparatione domorum per assigna ' Hern 226. CAP. VIII Customs as to Commons and where Severance shall not prejudice And Pleadings in such case THE Custom is that Copy-holders for Life have used to have Common in Waste or Estovers in Wood or any other profit appendant in parcel of the Manor after the Lord aliens the Waste Woods c. in Fee and after grants certain Copy-hold Lands and Houses for Lives such Grantees shall have Estovers Common c. notwithstanding the Severance Severance by the Lord shall not prejudice the Common of Estovers for the title of Copy-hold is pararamount the Severance 8 Rep. 63 64. Swain's Case 2 Brownl 231. mesme But after such Severance the Copy-holder when he would intitle himself to Common or Estovers he shall not plead generally Quod infra manerium tali◠habetur Pleading c. consuetudo for after the Severance the Waste or the Woods are not within the Manor but absolutely divided from it but he shall plead That until such a time viz. before the severance talis habetur a toto tempore c. consuetudo c. and then shew the Severance mesme Case Where Copy-hold is extinct the Common is lost though the word cum pertin be in the Grant Common which was first gained by Custom and annexed to the customary Estate is lost when the Copy-hold is extinct and infranchised for Common is not in its own nature incident to a Copy-hold Estate but a collateral interest gained by usage therefore Copy-holder of a Messuage and two Acres of Land for Life had Common in the Lords Waste the Lord grants and confirms the said Copy-hold Messuage and Lands cum pertinentiis to him and
Inheritances at the Common Law have unless it be by Custom for though they are Estates of Inheritance according to the Custom yet they are not Estates of Inheritance simpliciter that is to have all collateral Qualities as Estates in Fee-simple have but only such which Custom hath setled and allowed 4 Rep. 22. Brown's Case And accordingly my Lord Hobart in Cox and Darsen's Case p. 215. c. saith The collateral Incidents of Estates as Dower Tenancy by the Curtesie Wardship c. are not without special Custom And therefore Copy-hold Inheritance shall not be Assets to charge the Heir in an Action of Debt upon Bond made by his Father Copy-hold Lands not Assets in the Heir tho' he has therein bound his Heirs neither shall the Wife of such customary Estate be indowed nor the Husband be Tenant by the Curtesie neither shall the descent of any such Estate toll the Entry of him that had customary Right c. But to explain this in these before-mentioned Qualities and others I shall Illustrate it by several Cases and Resolutions Dower The Wife shall have Dower of a Copy-hold by special Custom otherwise not and when she is to be endowed of a Copy-hold by the Custom then she shall have all the incidents to Dower as to recover Damages for the Profits from the death of her Husband by the Statute of Merton C. 1. De viduis 4 Rep. 30. Shaw and Tompson Tenant by the Curtesie and that without admittance of the Wife The Custom of a Manor was That if any man had a Wife who was a Copy-holder in Fee of the Manor and had Issue by her that he should be Tenant by the Curtesie of the Land A. a Copy-holder was seized and had Issue a Daughter who was married to J. S. who had Issue A. dyed his Wife entred the Wife dyed before admittance The Question was if by the Entry of the Husband without admittance of the Wife he should be Tenant by the Curtesie Per Cur. he shall the delay of the admittance of the Wife shall not prejudice the Husband being a third person More n. 425. Ever and Aston but if a Woman Copy-holder in Fee takes Husband who had Issue and the Wife dyes there the Husband shall not be Tenant by the Curtesie without special Custom 4 Rep. 22. Ryers Case Descent tolls not an Entry Discontinuance The Descent of a Copy-hold doth not toll an Entry 4 Rep. 22 23. Bullock and Dibly and 3 Rep. 9. You may see there where the Entry shall be congeable by the Issue after a Surrender or Lease by Licence of the Lord made by the Ancestor and shall not be a Discontinuance The Lord seized a Copy-hold without cause and grants it to another in Fee Grantee dyes seized and his Heir is admitted The first Copy-holder dyes his Heir enters and Surrenders to the use of a Stranger Per Cur. 1. Descent of a Copy-hold shall not take away the Entry of another Copy-holder who hath right 2. The Entry of the Heir without admission is lawful and being in his Surrender is good Cro. Jac. 36. Joyner and Lambert If one seized of Copy-hold Land in the Right of his Wife Surrender this to the use of another in Fee who is admitted accordingly the Husband dyes this is no discontinuance to the Wife nor her Heirs but the Wife may enter and not be put to her cui in vita nor her Heir to her sur cui in vita If Copy-holder for Life Surrender to the use of another in Fee this is no Forfeiture Surrender by Copy-holder for Life to one in Fee is no forfeiture for this passeth by Surrender to the Lord and not by Livery And Copy-hold Estates shall not have such qualities as Estates at Common Law have without special Custom 4 Rep. 4. Clun and Pearse and therefore where by Custom of the Manor But recovery by Pleint in a real Action shall be a discontinuance Pleints have been made in the Court of the Manor in the nature of real Actions That if a Recovery be in a Pleint in the nature of a real Action against a Tenant Copy-holder in Tayl it s adjudged that this shall be a discontinuance and shall take away the Entry of the Heir in Tayl for these Pleints in the nature of real Actions are warranted by the Custom this is an incident which the Law annexeth to the said Custom and such recovery shall be a discontinuance 4 Rep. 23. Deal and Rigden Having finished the Learning of Customs in order to the understanding of Copy-hold Estates it will be convenient to say something of the customary Tenant and of the Court and the Steward which shall be attempted briefly in the next Chapter CAP. X. The several sorts of Coph-holders and who shall be said to be customary Tenants Of Copy-hold Burrough-English Of the Court Two sorts of Courts Baron Of the Copy-holders Court. Who may keep Courts and to what purposes and where Of the Steward his Office and power of Deputation what he may do ex officio or not WE read of three kinds of Copy-holders in our Book I. Terra Nativa These were called Bond-Lands also because they held in Villenage II. Custumary And this was held by Free-Tenants III. Mensales As also Dominica because by this the Table of the Lord is maintained Some Copy-hold Land is called Poadland and some Molland a molli redditu where some small Rent was reserved There were two other manner of Copy-holds Old Aster and new Aster Aster signifies a Chimney those Copy-hold Lands which had had usually for a long time an House on them they called Old Aster Lands but those which of late had an House built on them they called New Asters And in old Records the Bastard Eigne did plead That he was Filius Askarius as much as to say Born in the House 2 Rolls Rep. 235. M. 20 Jac. B. R. Smith and Reynard Some Copy-hold Land is in the nature of Burrough-English Cro. Jac. 56. Curtis's Case Copy-hold Burrough-English And so shall descend to the youngest Son Some Copy-hold is of the nature of Burrough-English as well for the Brother as the Son Cro. Jac. 101. Whitton and Williams Between a Copy-hold in Burrough-English and a Freehold in Burrough-English there is not any difference as to descents Cro. Car. 411. Baron and Feme Copy holders for Life of Copy-hold of the nature of Burrough-English Reversion to the Husband in Fee he had Issue three Sons William George and Charles The Father dyed seized of this Reversion which descended to Charles Charles dies without Issue the Wife dyes Question was whether William Brother and Heir of Charles or George should have it Berkly and Bramston were for George because there being a Reversion expectant upon Estate for Life George shall take his Title from his Father and take by descent from him who had seisin of the Free-hold and not make mention of him who had the
Manor after the Grant made hath stablish'd and fixed this firm to the Grantee So if the Copy-holders for Life used to have Common in the Lords Wastes or Woods and the Lord aliens the Wastes or Woods to another in Fee and after grants certain Copy-hold Lands or Houses for Lives such Grantees shall have Common of Pasture or Estovers notwithstanding the Severance for the Title of Copy-holder is paramount the Severance and the Custom unites the Common or Estovers which are but accessories and incidents so long as the House and Land being the principal is maintained by the Custom which customary Appurtenants are not pertaining to the Estate of the Lord for he is Owner of the Free-hold and Inheritance of the whole Manor but they are appertaining to the customary Estate of the Copy-holder after the Grant made 8 Rep. 63. Swain's Case Voluntary Grants made by Feoffee of Manor on Condition good Feoffee of a Manor upon Condition grants Land by Copy and afterwards the Manor becomes forfeited and the Feoffor entreth yet the Copy-hold Estate remains untouched so if Feoffee of a Manor on Condition to Enfeoff a Stranger and the next day makes a voluntary Grant by Copy this shall bind Coke Cop. Voluntary Estates granted during the time of the Lords Interest shall be good though the Lords Estate be avoided ab initio Nay though the Estate of the Lord in the Manor by Relation happen to be void ab initio yet if he grant by Copy during the continuance of his Interest it is good So Copy-holders Estates granted before a Divorce causa praecontractus shall be good So if a man espouseth the Lady of a Manor under the Age of consent and after she disagreeeth though the Marriage by relation was void ab initio yet Copy-holds granted before disagreement shall never be avoided So by Popham in Rowse's Case Owen 28. If a Manor be devised to one and the Devisee enters and makes Copies and then the Devise is found to be void yet such Copies of Surrenders are good Aliter where such Devisee makes new or voluntary Copies If the Lord of a Manor commits Felony or Murder and Process of Outlawry is awarded against him after the Exigent he granteth Copyhold Estates according to the Custom and then is Attainted these Grants are good though by relation the Manor was forfeited from the time of the Exigent awarded So if the Lord had been Attainted by Verdict or Confession If the Lord of a Manor acknowledgeth a Statute and then granteth Lands by Copy Grant after Stat. acknowledged and the Manor extended yet shall be good and after the Manor is delivered to the Conusee in Extent the Grant cannot by this be impeached Lease for years is made of a Manor and to be void upon breach of a Condition Condition is broken and Lessee before entry of the Lessor grants Estates by Copy these Grants shall never exclude the Lessor for upon breach of the Condition the Lease is void But in case of a Lease for Life or Grant in Tayl or Fee of the Manor on such Condition the granting Estates by Copy before Entry of the Lessor c. may be good for before his Title be executed by Entry the Tenant c. hath a lawful Interest to grant by Copy Coke Cop. p. 100 101. Sect. 34. But if a Parson before Induction grant Lands by Copy being parcel of a Manor which is Glebe Land this admitting binds not though he be afterwards Inducted Ibid. Tenant in Dower shall not avoid such Grant If the Lord of a Manor taketh a Wife and after that granteth Copy-hold Estates according to the Custom and dyeth and the Feme hath this Manor assigned to her in Dower yet she cannot avoid these Copy-hold Estates because the Copy-holders are in by a Title paramount to the Feme viz. by Custom Coke 8 Rep. 63. b. Swain's Case But if the Lords Heir make such assignment of Dower she may avoid them But in all these Cases before put observe these three Rules 1. These Grants must be according to the Custom of the Manor and Rents and Services customary must be reserved 2. Though it is not material what Estate or Interest the Lord hath Tenant at sufferance Grants c. shall not bind yet it must be an Estate or Interest and therefore Tenant Pur auer vie of a Manor is Cesty que vie dyes the Tenant continued possession of the Manor and held Courts and made voluntary Grants by Copy Per Cur. This shall not bind the Lord for he was but Tenant at sufferance who had not any Interest and so he was a Disseisor of the Manor More n. 369. Rouse and Artois 3. As to the Lords Grant of the Copy-hold Estate in respect of his Estate in the Copy-hold there the quantity of the Lords Estate is to be regarded for if a Copy-holder in Fee surrender to the use of the Lord for Life the remainder over to a Stranger or reserving the reversion to himself if the Lord will grant this by Copy in Fee whatsoever Estate the Lord hath in the Manor yet having but an Estate for Life in the Copy-hold no larger Estate shall pass than he himself hath Coke Cop. 96. What acts of the Lord in granting Copy-holds are not confirmed by Custom but only strengthned by the Power Interest and Authority of the Lord have no longer continuance than the Lords Estate continueth Therefore if a Tenant for Life of a Manor granteth a Licence to a Copy-holder to alien and dyeth the Licence is destroyed and the power of Alienation ceaseth Now as to the Quality of the Lords Estate he must be Legitimus Dominus he must have a lawful Estate in the Manor The Rule in Cokes 4 Rep. Clark and Pennyfeather's Case is universally true Grant by one that hath a tortious Title not Good If a Disseisor or Feoffee of a Disseisor or any other who had a tortious or defeazable Estate or Interest subject to the Action or Entry of another hold Court and make any voluntary Grant upon Escheat or Forfeiture of a Copy-hold such voluntary Grant shall not bind him that hath right when he hath re-continued the Manor by Action or Entry for to this intent the said Custom shall be understood of a Lord who hath a lawful Estate or Interest A Grant upon an usurped Title shall never bind the right Owner but that by Action or Entry he may avoid them for the Law will not support a Custom which shall work or tend to the disherison of the right owner If the Heir of a Disseisor who comes in by descent Grants any Copy-hold Estate it may be avoided by the Disseisee So of a Feoffee of a Disseisor who comes in by Title If Tenant in Tayl of a Manor discontinueth the Tayl and after the discontinuance granteth Copy-hold Estates and dyeth now the Discontinuee comes in under a just Title and shall enjoy against all the World during the
therefore where Surrenderer is Infant and dyes his Heir shall enter Cro. El. 90. Knights's Case It must be an actual Surrender in Court and not a Surrender in Law If a Copy-holder in Fee take the same Land of the Lord by other Copy for Life this is not any Surrender or Determination of his Copy-hold Inheritance for a Copy-hold may not be surrendred but by actual Surrender in Court sursum reddens this into the hands of the Lord and not by Surrender in Law 1 Rolls Abr. 501. Shepard and Adams In grant of a Reversion Attornment why not needful Attornment is not necessary for a Copy-holder because there is no time when the Termor should Attorn for before the Surrender he cannot Attorn and after the Surrender and Admittance it is too late The Copy-hold Estate is like an Estate raised by Uses or Devise in which an Attornment is not necessary 1 Brownl 179. Swinnerton and Miller The Surrender and Admittance are in the nature of an Inrolment and so amount to an Attornment or at least supply the want of it 1 Leon. 297. General Rules and Maxims 1. Implication is not good in a Surrender though it be in a Will A Surrender of Copy-hold Land was to the Use of the second Son for Life after the Death of the Tenant and his Heirs it was adjudged not good 1 Brownl Rep. 127. Allen and Nash Noy 152. 2. In Copy-hold Cases a Surrender to the Use c. This is no Use properly but an Explication shewing how the Land shall go 1 Brownl 127. 3. It is the general Custom of the Realm That every Copy-holder may Surrender in Court and need not to alledge any Custom therefore so if out of Court he Surrender to the Lord himself he need not in Pleading alledge any Custom but if he Surrender out of Court into the Hands of the Lord by the Hands of two or three Copy-holders or by the Hands of the Bayliff c. or by the Hands of any other these Customs are particular and therefore he must plead them Co. Lit. 59. a. The Estate of Cesty que use shall ensue the Limitation in the Surrender and not in the Admittance of the Lord Co. Lit. 659. b. If two Joynt-Tenants be of Copy-hold Lands in Fee and the one out of Court according to the Custom surrender his part to the Lords Hands to the use of his Will and by his Will deviseth his part to a Stranger in Fee and dyes and at next Court the Surrender is presented by the Surrender and Presentment the Joynture is severed and the Devisee ought to be admitted to the moiety of the Lands for now by relation the state of the Land was bound by the Surrender and the Lord cannot grant a larger Estate than is exprest by the limitation of the Use 1 Rolâ— Rep. 438. In Grant of a Reversion Attornment is not necessary for a Copy-holder Vide supra 5. Copy-hold may not be surrendred but by actual Surrender in Court and not by a Surrender in Law Vide infra 6. A Copy-holder cannot Surrender an Estate to another and leave a particular Estate in himself no more than a Freeholder Vide apres Before I come directly to treat of Surrenders one of the most useful pieces of Learning as to Copy-hold Estates I shall premise some general Considerations as to the Alienation of Copy-hold Estates or of a Transferring of Copy-hold Interest from one to another and more particularly of the Selling and Aliening of the Copy-hold Lands of a Bankrupt the knowledge whereof is very necessary and not very common The Assurance of Copy-hold Land from one man to another who is not Lord must be made by Copy of Court Roll according to the Custom and this must be by Surrender and for the perfecting thereof must be Presentment and Admittance generally For If I would have my Estate pass according to my Will I cannot devise this Copy-hold by Will but must surrender it to the use of my last Will and in my Will I must declare my intention But for the manner of doing it and the operation in Law Vide postea sub Titulo Surrender to the Use of a mans last Will. And If I would Exchange Copy-hold Land with another I cannot do it by Deed of Exchange but we may Surrender it each to other and the Lord shall admit us accordingly But Copy-hold Estates in some Cases may pass and be transferred from one to another without Surrender and that by Release Copy-hold in some Cases may pass otherwise than by Surrender But then we must observe this difference between a Release that enures by way of extinguishment or by way of an enlargement of an Estate By Release sometimes a Copy-hold may be transferred when it enures by way of extinguishment As by Release and so may serve to drown a Copy-hold Right As for the purpose A man is admitted upon a void Presentment and where the Presentment and Admittance is not according to the Surrender as where the Presentment is absolute and the Surrender conditional and so void It was resolved that the Admmittee had a customary Estate by Possession and is in by Title and is capable of a Release from him who had the right and here is a customary Estate upon which the Release may well be grounded besides the Lord is not prejudiced he being satisfied his Fine upon the Admittance So if I am ousted of a Copy-hold and the Lord admit the Disseisor according to the Custom a Release made by me will extinguish my right But if one be disseised of a Copy-hold Estate a Release by the Disseisee to the Disseisor is void for this is a prejudice to the Lord in losing his Admittance Fine if it should be good and there is no customary Right upon which a Release should enure there never having been Admittance as was in the other Case So is Mortimer's Case Hetly p. 150. But a man cannot pass a Copy-hold Estate by way of Lease and Release because this Release enures by way of enlargement of Estate and to transfer an Interest but this must be by a Lease for a Year which is warranted c. and by Surrender of the Reversion into the hands of the Lord and he to grant it over to the Lessee One Joynt-Tenant releaseth to his Companion One Joynt-Copy holder released to his Companion and it was resolved in the Case of Wase and Pretty Winch Rep. p. 3. That the Release was good without Surrender or Admittance for the first Admittance is of them and every of them and the ability to Release was from the first Conveyance and Admittance In some Cases Copy-holds cannot pass by Surrender Release Admittance or otherwise As for the purpose The Lord grants an ancient Copy-hold to S. in Fee and after he grants the Inheritance of that Copy-hold to a Stranger in Fee S. makes his Will and demiseth it to M. which was surrendred at next Court now by the
severance of the Copyhold from the Manor the Copy-hold is not destroyed but it is not parcel of the Manor now if one would alien this he cannot do it by Surrender for it s not parcel of the Manor neither can the Feoffee make Admittance for he is not Dominus but if such Copy-holder will alien there is no way but to have a Decree against him and his Heirs in Chancery and so to bind his person but by it the Interest of the Land is not bound 4 Rep. 24 25. By the Statute of 13 El. Cap. 7. Copy-hold Lands are to be sold by Deed Indented and Inrolled in any of his Majesties Courts of Record as other the Bankrupts Land but by the same Statute it is provided That all Persons to whom any such Sale shall be made shall before such time as they shall enter and take the Profit of the same agree and compound with the Lord of the Manor of whom the same shall be holden for such Fines or Incomes as heretofore hath been usual and accustomed to be yielded or paid therefore and upon every such Composition the Lord for the time being at the next Court to be holden at and for the said Manor shall not only grant to such Vendee upon request the same Copy or customary Lands or Tenements by Copy of Court Roll of the said Manors for such Estate or Interest as to them shall be sold and reserving the ancient Rents Customs and Services but also in the same Court admit them Tenants of the same Copy or customary Lands as other Copy-holders of the same Manor have been wont to be admitted as also to receive their Fealty accordingly Note Copy-hold Lands are within all the Statutes of Bankrupt Cro. Car. 550. Crisp and Plat. Title to a Copy-hold cannot be made by the Commissioners without Surrender or Admittance 1 Keb. 24. How and to what purpose such Estate Vests before Admittance Cro. Car. 569. In Parker and Bleke's Case it is adjudged That by Bargain and Sale made by the Commissioners of Bankrupts the Estate of the Copy-holder is vested in the Bargainee before Admittance though he may not enter and take the Profits till Admittance The Bargain and Sale binds the Copy-holder and bars his Estate and he is no Copy-holder after the Bargain and Sale enrolled And where the Bargainee is admitted by the Lord it shall have relation to the Bargain and Sale And where the Custom was That the Wife of a Copy-holder dying Tenant shall have a Life Estate it was adjudged the Copy-holder dying after the Bargain and Sale his Wife shall be barr'd of her Widows Estate A Bankrupt purchaseth a Copy-hold and the Tenant Surrenders into two Tenants Hands to the use of the Bankrupt and now he will not be admitted This may be sold by the Commissioners and the Vendee may pay the Admittance Of Surrender Now I shall treat of Surrenders then of Presentment and Admittance for that they make up but one Copy-hold Title First of Surrenders We have seen in the last Chapter how that in some Cases Copy-hold Lands may pass without Surrender Now In some few Cases a Surrender is sufficient without Admittance or Presentment Where Surrenders is sufficient without Admittance as if the Copy-holder Surrender to the Lords use there needs no Admittance And In some Cases Admittance will do without a Surrender Where Admittance is sufficient without a Surrender as if the Lord make a voluntary Grant of the Copy-hold in his hands no Surrender is needful but Admittance only But regularly Estates of Copy-hold must pass by Surrender and Admittance and if the Surrender be out of Court there must be a Presentment Of a Surrender in Court By what words a Surrender will pass It cannot well pass by any other word then sursum reddidit Surrender if it pass in the Court by the words Give Grant Bargain Sell this will not so pass it but the Heirs of the Copy-holder shall avoid it It is vocabulum artis as Warrantizare and some other Law words are What will amount to a Surrender in Court or not By Hobart in Hutton Rep. p. 81. What Words If a Copy-holder comes into Court and saith That he is weary of his Copy-hold and requests the Lord to take it that is a Surrender And by some if he come into the Court and desire the Lord to admit his Son into the Copy-hold this is a good Surrender to the use of the Son But if a Copy-holder comes into Court and saith He renounceth his Copy this is not any Surrender and if the Copy-holder say in the presence of any other Copy-holders He is content to Surrender to the use of J. S. This is not a good Surrender Any words in the Court that declare his intention of surrendring into the Lords Hands is good 3 Rep. 80. in Belfield's Case What Acts. It was agreed between the Lord of a Manor and J. S. That in Consideration of 5 l. paid to the Lord J. S. should enjoy the customary Lands for his Life and also of Alice his Wife durante viduitate and that J. S. should have election whether the said Lands should be assured to him and his Wife by Copy or by Bill c. and he chose by Bill which was made accordingly Per Cur. Here is a good Surrender of the said Lands and that for Life only 1 Leon. p. 191. Collman and Sir H. Portman's Case Cannot be surrendred but by actual Surrender If a Copy-holder in Fee takes the same Lands of the Lord by other Copy for Life this is not any Surrender or Determination of his Copy-hold Inheritance for a Copy-hold may not be surrendred but by actual Surrender in Court and not by a Surrender in Law 1 Rolls Abr. 501. Shepard and Adams But in 3 Bulst p. 80. Belfield and Adams its Reported thus Copy-holder in Fee comes into the Lord's Court and there takes a new Estate of his Copy-hold from the Lord to himself for his Life after to his Wife for Life and after to his Son for Life this was admitted a Surrender and so was the other Case in 1 Roll 501. In whom the Reversion after a particular Estate remains Postea 13 Jac. But the Reversion is in the Surrenderor no disposition having been made of it So in this Case this is not a giving up his Estate of Inheritance but only it shall enure by way of Surrender to the use of himself for Life after to the use of his Wife for Life and after to the use of his Son for Life But if a Copy-holder of Inheritance takes a Lease by Indenture for years by this his Copy-hold Estate is gone and this is a Surrender of his Inheritance in the other Case the Inheritance remains in him and is thus Reported by Rolls If a Copy-holder in Fee comes into Court Copy-holder by accepting of an Estate is not Estopt from claiming another Estate and accepts by Copy an
tribus assignatis suis by his death the Estate in the Copy-hold is determined Yelverton p. 16. Arnold's Case Though we have observed Surrender passeth not by implication That the passing of Estates of Copy-hold is much resembled to Devises yet an Use shall not pass in a Surrender by implication and therefore in Seagood and Hone's Case Cro. Car. 366. A Copy-hold is surrendred to the use of F. K. and J. R. Son of the said F. and of the longest liver of them both and for want of Issue of J. the Son of his Body lawfully begotten the Lands to remain to the youngest Son of M. S. Per Cur. J. had but an Estate for Life and being an Estate for Life limited by express limitation it shall not be a greater Estate by implication Of Surrender to a Use upon Use Surrender by A. to the Use of B. and his Heirs to the use of such person as A. should name by his Will Per Twisden in Leaper and Wroth's Case it is ill no Use can be raised upon an Use although it being Copy-hold it is not executed by the Statute But H. nominated by the last Will of A. had surrendred to B. the Court conceived no doubt in that Case 1 Keb. 627. Contingent Remainder Surrender is to the Use of one in Fee upon Condition to pay 100 l. to a Stranger and if he failed it should be to the Use of a Stranger in Fee The Question was whether that should be a good Limitation to the Stranger being a Fee upon a Fee Beaumont conceived it to be well enough being as an Use limited on a Feoffment but it was found specially Cro. El. 361. Paulter and Cornhil vide infra To the Use of ones Wife Is good though he which is admitted is in by him who makes the Surrender yet a man may Surrender to the Use of his Wife because the Husband doth not do this immediately to the Wife but by two means 1. By Surrender of the Husband to the Lord to the Use of the Wife And 2. By Admittance of the Lord to the Wife according to the Surrender 4 Rep. 29. Bunting and Lepingwel Where a Surrender is void for the uncertainty Averment A Copy-hold was granted to a Father and to his Son and Heirs who at the time of the Grant had but one Son it was adjudged a good Limitation to that Son Cro. Jac. 374. Cobb and Betterson But in Winkmore's Case cited there where a Copy was granted to S. the Father and to his Son and he doth not demonstrate which of his Sons shall have it it was adjudged to be a void Grant for the uncertainty he having many Sons at that time But that which is wholly uncertain no subsequent manifestation of my intention can help it as a Surrender to the Use of my Cosin or my Friend or to the Use of J. S. or J. N. Surrender to the Use of a Person not in esse And in this point Limitations of Estates are not directed according to the Rules of Law In this Estates are not directed according to Law For at Common Law if the Grantee immediate and be not in rerum natura and able to take by vertue of the Grant its void presently But though at the time of the Surrender the Grantee is not in esse or not capable of a Surrender yet if he be in esse and capable at the time of Admittance that is sufficient as a Surrender to him that shall be Heir to J. S. or to the Use of the next Child of J. S. or to the next Wife of J. S. though at the time of the Surrender J. S. had no Child Heir or Wife yet if he afterwards hath his Heir Wife or Child may come into Court and compel the Lord to admit according to the Surrender the reason of this Construction seems to be the Surrender is a thing executory and is executed by the subsequent Admittance and nothing vests in the Grantee before Admittance and therefore if at the time of the Admittance he be capable to take it s enough Co. Copy Put the Case at Common Law J. S. bargains and Sells to the Use of the next Son of J. D. and he hath no Son then but after he hath a Son before the Deed is enrolled yet this shall not be good and yet it s as an executory Grant i. e. not perfected till enrollment and nothing passeth till enrollment or vesteth in the Bargainee till then no more than by Surrender I will put this Case A Surrender is to the Use of A. B. for Life and after to the next Child that J. S. shall have A. B. forfeits his Estate J. S. having no Child at that time but afterwards he hath a Child shall this Child compel the Lord to admit him Q. for such a Remainder at Common Law would be destroyed But a Surrender to the Use of the right Heirs of J. S. he being alive is void because it cannot take effect according to the intent of the Grantor which is to be executed presently To one in 〈◊〉 mere Surrender Habend after his death to the Use of his Child then in ventre sa mere his or her Heirs and Assigns and if it dye before full Age or Marriage then to the Use of another in Fee Copy-holder dyes Infant was born but dyes before Age or Marriage this is not good he cannot make such a conditional Surrender to operate in futuro But whether the Surrender to an Infant in ventre sa mere be good hath been much much questioned Cro. Jac. 376. 1 Rolls Rep. 109 131. 2 Rolls Abr. 415 416. 2 Bulstr 274 275. Simson and Sothern Some are for it and some against it I conceive it is allowed to be good as well as a Devise to an Infant in ventre entre sa mere Surrender to the Use of J. S. for Life remainder to the Use of an Infant in ventre sa mere is good Of a Surrender to take effect in futuro A Surrender of a Copy-hold in Fee a tempore mortis is void 1 Sanders 151. Or a Surrender at a day to come is void Copy-holder in Fee Surrenders out of Court into the hands of two Tenants in Writing as follows Memorandum Such a day and year A. S. the Copy-holder Surrenders the Land c. to the Use of B. and C. c. This Surrender not to stand and be of force till after the decease of A. S. Per Cur. If this Memorandum should be good then this had been a Surrender at a day to come and consequently void and therefore the Surrender being perfect before by the first part of the Instrument this Memorandum shall not make it void but the Memorandum shall be void 2 Rolls Abr. 61. Seagood and Hone. And the Reason is given in Simpson and Southern's Case Cro. Jac. p. 376. A Copy-holder cannot Surrender an Estate to another and leave a particular Estate himself no more than a Free-holder for so
the Surrenderer should have a particular Estate in him without a Donor or Lessor which by the Rule of Law cannot be March Rep. 177. Bambridge and Whitton therefore Noy p. 152. is not Law Vid. 1 Roll Rep. 135. CAP. XV. Constructions of Surrenders as to Limitations of Remainders and Reversions Of Contingent Remainders Where the Heir shall be in by Descent or Purchase Of a Surrender to the Vse of ones last Will and how to be Construed Surrender upon Condition or Contingency Of Surrender before Admittance Surrender by whom to whom by Feme Covert Countermand of a Surrender What Remedy to force a Trustee to Surender Construction of Surrenders as to Reversion Remainder Limitation What shall be good to pass by the Name of a Reversion or not Surrender by the name of a Reversion COpy-holder by Licence of the Lord demised the Copy-hold to the Plaintiff for twenty years by Indenture rendring Rent the same Copy-holder surrendred the Reversion of the one moity to A. and of the other to B. and they were admitted Per Cur. The Surrender by the name of a Reversion was good in this Case though the Lease was not made by Surrender which had then been directly derived out of the customary Estate but by Indenture for it is still the Lease of the Copy-holder and not of the Lord and the Rent will be divided by moities Husband seized of Copy-hold Land in the right of his Wife who had the Fee surrendred the Copy-hold Land by the name of a Reversion after the death of the Husband and Wife the Surrender is void for by that pretence there shall be a particular Estate left in the Wife and also in the Husband One cannot leave a particular Estate in himself whereas the Husband had nothing before which cannot be And when one is seized in Fee he cannot by any matter in Fact give away the Inheritance after his death and so leave a particular Estate in himself Peradventure by matter of Record he may Cro. Eliz. p. 29. Clamp's Case Copy-holder in Fee by Licence of the Lord 15 Feb. 4 Jac. makes a Lease for sixty years rendring Rent and the Lease was to commence at Michaelmass next ensuing Lessee enters and was possessed Postea scil 8. May the Copy-holder surrenders the Reversion to divers Uses the Grantee of the Reversion distrains for Rent this Grant of the Reversion seems not to be good the Surrender being made the 8th of May which was before the inception of the Lease perhaps if no day had been named it had been good Lit. Rep. 17 18. Surrender of a Reversion bears date before the inception of the Lease Mary Selby and Beck and Drewet's Case there cited A Feme Copy-holder in Fee comes into Court and offers to Surrender to J. S. in Fee but she desires to retain to her self an Estate for Life the Steward enters that she surrenders the Reversion of her Copy-hold to J. S. after her her death it s naught Vide Attornment supra Limitations in Remainder and Construction thereon and of Contingent Remainder Tenant for Life and he in Remainder of a Copy-hold he in Remainder surrenders his Remainder to the Use of Tenant for Life and after his decease to the Use of himself and his Wife the Estate limited to the Tenant for Life is void but the Estate limited to Baron and Feme is good by way of present Estate and not of Remainder 1 Sanders Rep. 150 151 152. So in Siderfin Remainder over good by way of Grant and doth not depend upon a particular void Estate p. 360. Copy-holder in Remainder surrenders to a Copy-holder for Life Remainder over this Remainder over is good by way of grant in the Estate limited to the Tenant for Life because he had an Estate in it for his Life before and therefore it was argued That the Remainder limited after this particular Estate which is void in its creation are void also But Per Cur. the intent was that Husband and Wife shall have the Land joynly for their Lives in possession after the death of Tenant for Life as by mediate Settlement A Surrender is rather in nature of a Deed Poll than of an Indenture and enures by way of limitation of Use ut res magis valeat Wade and Bath Fee upon a Fee upon a Contingency A Fee may be limited upon a Fee upon a collateral Contingent in Copy-hold Estates As if a man surrender a Copy-hold in Fee to the Use of J. S. and his Heirs who is an Infant and if J. S. dyes before the age of twenty one years or marriage then he surrenders this to the use of J. D. in Fee This is a good Remainder to D. upon the Contingent 2 Rolls 791. Simpson and Southwood It s made a Quaere in Stiles in the Argument of Pausley's Case If by the destruction of a particular Copy-hold a Contingent Remainder be destroyed Rolls conceived not because it doth not depend upon the particular Estate but ought to expect till the Remainder happen Stiles 251. and there is one in esse to take the particular Estate But it seems the Law to be contrary and that if the particular Estate be destroyed the Contingent Remainder is gone As to this A Surrender is to the Use of a Feme Covert the Remainder to the right Heirs of the Body of the Husband and Wife he in the Remainder shall not take till the Husband dyes for he which is to have this ought to be Heir of the Body of both 2 Rolls Abr. 415. Lane and Pannel A like Case as this is also Reported 3 Leon. p. 4. Copy-holder is surrendred to the Use of the Wife for Life the Remainder to the Use of the right Heirs of the Husband and Wife the Husband entred in the right of his Wife Per Cur. The Remainder is executed for a moiety presently in the Wife and the Husband was seised of that in the Right of his Wife and the Wife dying first her Heir shall have it but if the Husband had dyed first his Heir should have had one moiety But the Case of Lane and Pannel wherein was good Law and nicely argued is better Reported in 1 Rolls Rep. 238 317 438. The Case was this Lane was seized of a Copy-hold in Fee and having a Wife surrenders it to the Use of Dixon and the Wife for their Lives and after to the Use of the Heirs of the Body of the Husband and Wife and the Wife and Dixon are admitted to them and their Heirs and after Dixon surrenders his moiety to the Husband and Wife and their Heirs upon which they were admitted and afterwards they Surrender it to the Use of one Davis in Fee who was admitted then the Wife dyes having Issue and after the Husband dyes the Heir brings an Action of Trespass it s not maintainable The great Question was whether the Wife had an Estate Tayl executed vested in her Per Coke Whether
of his last Will how the Estate stands in the Surrenderer Copy-holder surrenders to the Use of himself for Life and after to the Use of R. his Son for Life and after to the Use of his last Will. R. dyes the Father afterwards surrenders it to the Use of J. S. in Fee and dyes without making any Will It s a good Surrender for a Copy-holder may surrender parcel of the Estate and the residue shall be in himself and the Fee Simple of the Copy-hold being limited to the Use of his Will remains in the Copy-holder and not in the Lord Cro. El. 441. Co. 4 Rep. 23. Finch and Hockly and that the Fee lyes not in the Lord is Bullen and Grants Case 1 Leon. p. 174. When one surrenders to the Use of his last Will and thereby deviseth Copy-hold Lands to his middle Son and the Heirs of his Body who dyes without Issue and the Lord grants it to the youngest the eldest Son may enter and Admittance is not necessary Copy-hold devised to pay Debis J. S. seized in Fee of Copy-hold Lands devised it to his Wife for Life and that she should sell the Reversion for the payment of his Debts and after in Court did Surrender the Lands to the Use of his Wife for Life according to the Will and Deed she may sell the Land he surrendered and referred to the Will and she surrendred upon Condition to pay 12. l. this was held to be a good Sale according to the Will Cro. El. 68. Bright and Hubbard If there be two Joynt-Tenants By Joynt-Tenants and the one Surrenders into the Hands of two Tenants to the Use of his last Will and makes a Will of the Land and dyes the Surrender is afterwards presented Per Cur. It s a severance of the Joynture and shall bind the Survivor for being presented it shall relate to the first time of the Surrender Cro. Jac. 800. Porter's Case 1 Brownl Rep. 127. Allen and Nash Pleadings Quod tenens custumar in feodo possit devisare in feodo pro termino vitae vel annorum Coke Ent. 124. Surrender upon Condition or Contingency Copy-holder may Surrender to the Use of another on Condition if the Copy-holder pay to the Surrendree c. ad Domum suam Mansionalem c. that then the Surrender shall be void 5 Rep. 114. Wade's Case A Copy-holder may Surrender to the Use of another reserving Rent Condition Re entry for non-payment of Rent with Condition of re-entry for non-payment and for default of payment he may re-enter 4 H. 6.11.21 H. 6.37 A Copy-holder surrenders upon Condition and afterwards by his Deed releaseth the Condition its good without surrender for properly a Right or Condition cannot be given or determined by Surrender but by Release Cro. Jac. 36. Hull and Shardbrook 4 Rep. Kite and Quinton Surrender to the Use of one in Fee upon Condition to pay 100 l. to a Stranger it was a Question if the tender of 100 l. to a Stranger and he refusing the Condition is saved By Beaumont it is saved aliter in Case of an Obligation where he takes upon him to do it Cro. El. p. 361. Paulter's Case K. L. Father of the Defendant Copyholder in Fee surrendred to the Use of the Defendant in Fee upon Condition he should perform the Covenants in such an Indenture the Defendant was admitted and after surrenders the Land to the Use of the Plaintiff in Fee upon Condition if the Defendant paid 10 l. the Surrender to be void The Defendant neither paid the 10 l. nor performed the Covenant in the Indentures The Father enters and dyes seized and it descends to the Defendant Additional Surrenders defeated by Entry and he enters upon whom the Plaintiff enters The Question was if this Entry were lawful and adjudged it was not for by the Entry of the Father both the Surrenders are defeated So the Defendant may confess and avoid what was done to the Plaintiff Judgment pro Defendente Cro. Eliz. 239. Simonds and Lawnd Trin. 33. Eliz. One cannot pass a Copy-hold Estate to begin at a day to come no not upon a Contingency A Copy-holder saith he surrenders his Copy-hold Estate and if his Child which shall be Born dyes before his Age of 21 years that then his Brother shall have it it s not good This Case falls upon a Rule in Law That one cannot pass a Copy-hold Estate to begin from a day to come nor yet upon a Contingency no more than a Free-hold at Common Law 2 Bulstr 274. Simpson and Southern If a Copy-holder surrenders his Copy-hold of Inheritance into the hands of the Lord Use vests presently the Condition to take effect in futuro to the Use of J. S. paying of an 100 l. to his Executors within such a time after his death he to whose Use this Surrender is made takes by force of this presently Per Dodridge 2 Bulst p. 275. idem Case Surrender upon Condition or Contingency Copy-holder may surrender to the Use of another on condition if the Copy-holder pay 250 l. ad domum suam mansionalem c. that then the Surrender shall be void 5 Rep. 114. Wade's Case A Copy-holder may surrender to the Use of another reserving Rent Condition of re-entry for non-payment of Rent with condition of re-entry for non-payment and for default of payment he may re-enter 4 H. 6.11.21 H. 6.37 A Copy-holder surrenders upon condition and afterwards by his Deed releaseth the condition its good without surrender for properly a right or condition cannot be given or determined by Surrender but by Release Cro. Jac. 36. Hull and Sharebrook 4 Rep. Kite and Quinton Surrender to the Use of one in Fee upon condition to pay 100 l. to a Stranger it was a Question if the tender of the 100 l. to the Stranger and he refusing the condition is saved By Beaumont it is saved aliter in Case of an Obligation where he takes upon him to do it Cro. El. p. 361. Poulter's Case The Form of a Surrender of Copy-hold Land upon Condition Vide Conveyancers Light p. 827. Vide infra Presidents Of Surrender before Admittance whether it shall be good or not Purchaser hath nothing before Admittance neither can he Surrender A Surrender to J. S. J. S. Surrenders to a Stranger who is Admitted The Stranger takes nothing for J. S. had no Estate before Admittance and the right and possession still remains in him who surrendred and this shall descend to his Heir But the diversity is an Heir to whom a Copy-hold descends or comes in remainder he may surrender before Admittance because he is in by course of Law for he Custom which makes him Heir to the Estate casts the Possession upon him from his Ancestors But a Stranger to whom the Copy-hold is surrendred had nothing before Admittance because he is a Purchaser and the Copy made to him upon his Admittance is his Evidence by the Custom and before
this he is not a customary Tenant and so he can transfer nothing to another Yelv. p. 144 145. Wilson and Weddel Cro. Jac. p. 36. Joyner's Case The Heir may surrender the Reversion before Admittance Copy-holders Baron and Feme to them and the Heirs of the Husband Husband dyes the Heir may surrender his Reversion into the hands of two Tenants out of Court if the Custom be so before any Admittance and during the Life of the VVife and its a good Surrender for the Reversion was cast upon him by the Surrender before any Admittance 1 Rolls Abr. 499. Calchin and Calchin Surrender by whom By Infant An Infant who Surrendred his Copy-hold Land within Age may enter at his full Age without being put to any Suit for it Popham p. 39. Infant within Age surrenders to the Use of another it s not good in Chancery Mich. 9 Jac. Hughs and Carpenter Baron seized of Copy-hold in right of his Feme in Fee surrenders without his Wife By Husband of the Wives Land to the Use of J. S. in Fee who was Admitted Baron dyes VVife dyes the Heir of the VVife enters and makes a Lease and good this was not any discontinuance against the VVife to put the Heir to his Plaint in nature of a sur cui in vita That Action is given where Recovery by default is against the Baron and Feme Popham 39. Bullock and Dibler Copy-holder pur vie Surrenders to the Use of another By Copyholder for Life there can be no possibility of having it again if he survive for the Surrenderer is meerly in by the Lord and not by the Copy-holder but if a Copy-holder in Fee surrender to the Use of another for Life who is admitted he is in quasi by the Copy-holder and by his death the Copy-holder shall have it again Cro. Car. 204 King and Lord. Tenant for Life of a Copy-hold where the Remainder is over may surrender to the Lord 9 Rep. 107. Podger's Case A Feme Covert and J. S. are Tenants for Life of a Copy-hold By Joynt-Tenants and J. S. surrenders his moiety to the Husband of the VVife this is a severance of the Joynture so that he is Tenant in Common with his VVife 2 Rolls Abr. 88. Lane and Pannel Two Joynt-Tenants of a Copy-hold and the one surrenders his moiety into the Hands of the Lord to the Use of his last VVill and thereby deviseth it to another this is a good Devise because by the Surrender the Joynture was severed between them Co. Lit. 59. b. So if there are two Joynt-Tenants in Fee of a Copy-hold and the one Surrenders his part out of Court into the Hands of the Lord to the Use of his last VVill and by his last VVill afterwards deviseth it to the Use of a Stranger in Fee and after at next Court the Surrender is presented by the Surrender and Presentment the Joynture was severed and the Devisee ought to be Admitted to the moiety of the Land for now by relation the State of the Land was bound by the Surrender Co. Lit. 59 b. Constable's Case cited there Where a Copy-hold granted by a Disseisor c. shall be good and stand in force against the Disseisee and where not By Disseisor c. Tenant for Life Remainder for Life of a Copy-hold the Remainder man for Life enters upon Tenant for Life in possession and makes a Surrender nothing at all passeth hereby for by his Entry he is a Disseisor and hath no customary Estate in him whereof to make a Surrender Mod. Rep. 199. Bird and Keck Of the lawful Lord who can make Grants and admit upon Surrenders This diversity was unanimously agreed If Disseisor or Feoffee of a Disseisor or any other who has a tortious or defeasible Estate or Interest subject to the Action or Entry of another hold Court and make any voluntary Grant upon Escheat or Forfeiture of a Copy-hold such voluntary Grant shall not bind him that had right when he shall re-continue the Manor by Action or Entry for to this intent the said Custom shall be intended of a Lord which had a lawful Estate or Interest but if such Lord who had a tortious or defeasible Estate admit any upon Surrender made to the Use of another or give Admittance to the Heir upon a Descent such Admittance shall be good and within the Custom for such acts are lawful and quodammodo judiciales and which he may be compelled to do in a Court of Equity 4 Rep. 23. b. Clark and Penyfeather So every one who had a lawful Estate or Interest in a Manor Dom. pro Tempore both in Fee or Tayl or Dower or by the Curtesie or for Life or Years or as Guardian or Tenant by the Statute or Elegit or at Will Otherwise of Tenant at Sufferance For if there be Tenant pur auter vie of a Manor and Cesty que vie dyes and the Tenant continue in the Manor and hold Courts and makes voluntary Grants by Copy this shall not bind the Lessor aliter of Admittance upon Surrender or upon Descent 4 Rep. 24. Rous and Archer's Case such Grants shall not be avoided by disability of the person or defect of Interest or exility of the Estate of the Lords as at VVill sur condition c. 8 Rep. 63. Swain's Case Or whether it were granted by non compos mentis Infant Bishop Parson non sanae memoriae c. it is not material in Surrenders Vide supra in Tit. Lords Grants If a Copy-hold Escheat or come into their Hands during their time they may re-grant it reddendum the ancient Rents Customs and Services and this shall bind the Lord who had the Inheritance or Free-hold 4 Rep. ibid. So such Grant by Baron and Feme shall bind the VVife notwithstanding the Coverture So a Grant by a non compos mentis a Bishop Infant and so Feme Covert non sanae memorie Infants Successors of Bishops Parsons Prebends are bound by the said Custom it being that the Tenements sunt dimiss dimissib per Dom. Manerij pro tempore existen c. ibid. vide supra By a Feme Covert A Tenant out of Court cannot take a Surrender of a Feme Covert for that she is secretly to be examined by the Steward Tothil p. 108. unless by special Custom Sola secreta examinat The Surrender of a Feme Covert being so le examined shall bind her but whether such a Surrenderer upon her examination made before two Tenants of the Manor such Surrenders before them being used to be made be good was the Question in the Case of Erish and Rives Mich. 41 El. B. C. and Per Cur. by special Custom to warrant it it may be good By Infant Vide supra By the Husband of the Wives Land Quid operatur Feme Tenant for Life of a Copy-hold the Reversion being granted over to B. for Life Remainder to C. for Life cum acciderit post
Therefore T. H. was Copy-holder in Fee and surrendred out of Court into the Hands of H. B. and W. J. two Copy-holders of the Manor to the Use of R. W. in Fee R. W. entred and paid the Rent to the Lord. T. H. who surrendred dyed H. B. and W. J. who took the Surrender are dead The Heir of T. H. entred R. W. re-enters Per Cur. By the Surrender into the Hands of two Tenants nothing passed until it was presented in Court and in the interim the Interest remains in him who made the Surrender which Interest descended to the Heir and the acceptance of the Rent by the hands of Cesty que use gives not any Interest unto him and there is no Estate in Cesty que use but an Inception until this Surrender be presented in Court But they held also That it was not of necessity that the Parties who took the Surrender should present it and although they are dead and the Party who made it is dead yet as the Custom is found if it be presented by any other Copy-holder when the Court is held it s well enough and he may be thereupon admitted Cro. Jac. 403. Froswel and Welch and so is Buntings's Case 4 Rep. so resolved And Cesty que use shall procure a Court to be held for his own advantage 1 Bulst 215. mesme Case Two Joynt-Tenants in Fee of a Copyhold Cesty que use to procure a Court to be held for his own advantage and one surrenders his part into the Hands of the Lord to the Use of his last Will and after deviseth this to another in Fee and dyes and after at the next Court this is presented the Devisee shall have it for now by relation the Joynture was severed and the Estate of the Land bound by the Surrender Constable's Case Rolls 1 Abr. 501. So Cro. 30 Jac. Mich. Porter's Case Custom for a Copy-holder to Devise and if the Will be not presented within a year and a day next after the Devise to be void they were several Customs and so differ from Peyrrman's Case Now suppose no Court be holden in that time Carter's Rep. 71 72 88. Smith and Painton It shall be presented at a Court within the year or at next Court after the year ended else it shall be void 5 Rep. 84. 2 Anderson 125. In Perryman's Case 5 Rep. 84. It is a Question what remedy if the Copy-holder will not present the Surrender made out of Court the Answer is Caveat emptor but certainly there is good remedy in Equity as in all Cases of Trustees or Instruments of Conveyance The Custom is That it should be presented at next Court otherwise it was void One surrenders his Copy-hold into the Hands of two Tenants out of Court upon condition of payment of Mony 25 July after to be void After he surrenders out of Court to the Use of J. S. the Mony was paid before the 25 of July Then he surrenders to the Use of a third person before the payment At the next Court the surrenders were presented Two Surrenders and the second Surrender presented first but not the first and the Lord grants Admittances severally to these two Persons Per Cur. The second Surrender was good for nothing by the Surrender out of Court was divested out of him that surrendred until the Surrender was presented but he was absolute Owner to bring Trespass or any other Action and then that not being presented and the second was presented the first Surrender was void and the second was good Jones 306. 1 Rol. Abr. 500 Burgis and Spurlin's Case Cro. Car. 273 283. mesme Case CAP. XVII Of Admittances upon Voluntary Grants Surrenders Descents By whom Admittances upon Surrender made shall bind In what Cases the Admittance of the one shall be the Admittance of another Of Admittance by Attorny Admittance where to be made Of Admittance upon Descent The time of Admittance What things the Heir may do or not do before Admittance In what Cases and to what purposes the Copy-hold Estate shall be in the Tenant and to what purposes not And what Leases c. made by them shall be good and in what Cases the Lord shall be compellable to make Admittances and where not Of Admittances on voluntary Grants NOTE a diversity between the Heir who comes in course by Descent and another Stranger who comes in by Surrender and hath these words Dominus concessit admissus est but when the Heir of a Copy-holder is to be Admitted he hath only these words Et admissus est Admittances are of three sorts upon a Voluntary Grant Surrender Descent As to voluntary Grants made by the Lord in some sense he may be said to be the absolute Owner of the Land and may dispose of it at his pleasure yet he is bound to observe the Custom of the Manor in his Grants neither can he alter the Estate or Tenure If the Custom doth warrant an Estate to a Woman durante viduitate only and the Lord admits for Life this shall not bind his Heir The Custom must be pursued So in Reservations according to the accustomable Rent the Lord must strictly pursue it as where he reserves 10 s. where the usual Rent was 20 s. So where the Rent has been accustomably paid at four Feasts and the Lord reserves it at two Feasts these are void So if two Copy-holds Escheat to the Lord the one of which hath been usually demised for 20 s. rent and the other for 10 s. and he granteth them both by Copy for 30 s. it s not good But in this kind of Surrender the Lord is not considered barely as an Instrument because he is not bound to dispose the Land but to whom he pleaseth yet he is an Instrument in respect he is tyed unto Custom but in the other sort of Surrender he is barely an Instrument Where to be made The Lord himself may grant or make Admittances out of the Manor at what place he pleaseth but so cannot the Steward 4. Rep. 26 and 27. Several Tenures and several Fines The Lord admits Tenenda per antiqua servitia inde prius debita de jure consueta And if the Tenures are several the Fines must be several In Westwick's Case 4 Rep. The Entry of the Roll was Ad hanc curiam venerunt Willielmus Westwick Johanna Uxor ejus ceperunt de Domino Tenementa praed cum pertin in quibus c. prefat Willielmo Westwick Johannae Uxori ejus Tenend eisdem Willielmo Johannae haeredibus suis c. When the Surrender was to the Use of William Westwick in Fee yet the Admittance shall enure only to the Husband The Admittance must be pursuant to the Surrender for the Lord can but make Admittance secundum formam offectum sursum redditionis de quo vide in Cap. Surrenders Cesty que use cannot surrender before Admittance and the Entry of the Surrenderer doth not make an
Cesty que use surrenders to another and after at another Court he to whose Use the Surrender was surrenders the Land to the Use of another this shall enure as an Admittance upon the first Surrender and after a Surrender for by the acceptance of the Surrender he is admitted Tenant Acceptance of a Surrender 1 Rolls Abr. 505. Calchin's Case 3 Bulst 230. mesme Case If a Copy-holder surrender to the Use of another Acceptance of Rent and after the Lord having knowledge of this accepts the Rent of Cesty que use out of Court this is an Admittance in Law Rolls 1 Abr. 505. Freswel and Welch If the two Tenants into whose Hands the Surrender was pay the Rent to the Lord yet his acceptance shall not amount to an Admittance but if he had alledged the payment of the Rent and acceptance of it by the Lord as of his Copy-holder this would have amounted to a good Admittance of him 3 Bulstr 215. mesme Case Any act to imply the consent of the Lord to the Surrender What acts or words by the Lord amount to an Admittance it shall be a good Admittance the Presentment by the Homage doth not make an Admittance the acceptance by the Steward of the Presentment is no Admittance Bridgman Rep. 82. Robinson and Groves Copy-holder surrenders his Estate to the Use of J. S. who again surrenders the same to the Use of J. N. this is good vide supra Or in such case if the Lord meet J. N. and saith to him Such a Surrender is made to your Use to which I agree or am content this saying amounts to a good Admittance 3 Bulstr 230. Elken's Case 215 216. If the Steward accept a Fine as of a Copy-holder it amounts to an Admittance granted in Rawlinson and Green's Case 3 Bulstr 237. In what Cases the Admittance of one shall be the Admittance of another If a Copy-holder surrender to the Use of one for Life the Remainder to another the Admittance of Tenant for Life is Admittance for him in Remainder also for that they are but one Estate and but one Fine is due for both 4 Rep. 22 23. Fither's Case Aliter of him in Reversion More n. 488. Dell and Higden He in Remainder after a Tenant for Life who was admitted surrenders to the Use of a Stranger in the Life-time of Tenant pur vie and good Cro. Jac. 31. Auncelm's Case But such Admittance of Tenant for Life shall not prejudice the Lord of his Fee due by the Custom 4 Rep. Brown's Case 22 23. Foxton and Colston But in Hippin and Bunner's Case Popham thought only one Fine to be due upon such surrender which the Tenant for Life shall pay before his Admittance except there be especial Custom that two Fines shall be due Cro. Eliz. 504. The Admittance of Tenant for Life or Years shall be an Admission of all in Remainder Per Hales and there is no inconvenience in it for Fines are to be paid by the particular Remainder except a Fine be assessed for the whole Estate and then there is an end of the Business The Estate is bound by the Surrender and shall go to them in Remainder Mod. Rep. and 3 Keb. 29. Blackburn and Greves A Copy-holder Surrenders to the Use of several Persons for years successive the Remainder in Fee to J. S. an Admittance of a particular Tenant is an Admittance of all the Remainders to all purposes but only the Lords Fine and the Possession of Lessee for years is the Possession of him in Remainder ibid so as to make a Possessio Fratris and the Sister of the whole Blood shall have it before a Brother of the second Venter Admittance by Attorny The Lord may refuse to admit by Attorny him to whose Use a Surrender was made for that he ought to do Fealty which he cannot do by Attorny 9 Rep. 76. Comb's Case Yet if the Lord will admit him by Attorny its good ibid. A Copy-holder surrendred to the Use of his last Will and devised the Lands to his youngest Son in Fee The youngest Son being in Prison makes a Letter of Attorny to one to be admitted to the Land in the Lords Court in his room and also after Admittance to surrender the same to the Use of B. and his Heirs to whom he had sold it for the payment of his Debts by two Judges it s not a good Surrender Admittance of an Heir is good by Prochein Amy By Prochein Amy. for by such Admittance he is to do corporal Service which cannot be done but in person and yet it hath been adjudged good the Heir consenting but otherwise 2 Siderfin 37 61 Blunt and Clark 4 Rep. Brown and Clerk's Case The Case was Copy-holder surrenders to the Use of J. S. and his Heirs Proviso That if the Copy-holder pay eight hundred pounds at such a day the Surrender shall be void J. S. dyes before the day not being admitted and his Heir beyond Sea A Neighbour comes and is admitted in the name of the Heir the Heir comes back and brings Ejectment Per Cur. It s a good Admittance for a Consent subsequent is as strong as an Authority precedent in this Case and the Heir affirms his Admission And if a Surrender Per Glyn be to the Use of J. S. and J. N. is admitted and J. S. consents it s a good Admittance Admittance where to be made The Lord of the Manor may make Admittance out of the Manor also Co. Lit. 61. b. The Steward of the Manor may admit upon a Surrender out of Court as well as in Court 4 Rep. 26 27. Freswel and Welch Admittances upon Descent The diversity between Admittance upon Surrender and Admittance upon Descent lyes In Admittance upon Surrender nothing is vested in the Grantee before Admittance no more than in voluntary Grants but in Admittance upon Descents the Heir is Tenant by Copy immediately upon the death of his Ancestor The time of Admittance There is thirty years between the death of the Father Excuse and the Heirs not being admitted who made a Lease Per Cur. this is supina negligentia and shall disable his Person to make any Demise but the Lessor at the time of the death of his Ancestor was two years of age and that after his full age no Court had been holden for a long time and that at the first Court lately he prayed to be admitted and the Steward refused him And Per Cur. this is a good excuse 1 Leon. 100. Rumny and Eves If a Copy-holder dyeth When the Heir must pray to be admitted his Heir within age he is not bound to come at any Court during his non-age to pray Admission or to tender his Fine also if the death of the Ancestor is not Presented nor Proclamations made he is not at any mischief although he be of full Age ibid. What things the Heir way do or not before Admittance Upon the death of the Ancestor he may
enter upon the Land before Admittance he may take the Profits punish any Trespass done upon the Land 4 Rep. 21. Brown's Case and 23 Fitch and Huckly He may before Admittance surrender to whose Use he pleaseth paying the Lord his Fine The Lord may avow upon him before Admittance for arrears of Rents or other Services If Baron and Feme Copy-holders to them and to the Heirs of the Husband are and the Husband dyes the Heir of the Husband may surrender his Reversion into the hands of two Tenants of the Manor out of Court before any Admittance during the Life of the Wife and this is a good Surrender for the Reversion was cast upon him before any Admittance Calchin's Case 1 Rolls Abr. 499. Possessio Fratris before Admittance There shall be a possessio fratris before Admittance for if a Copy-holder in Fee have Issue a Son and a Daughter by one Venter and a Son by another Venter What makes a Possession or not for that purpose and his Son by the first Venter enter into the Land and dyeth before Admittance the Daughter shall Inherit as Heir to her Brother and not the Son by the second Venter as Heir to his Father And sometimes the Possession of a Termor without any actual Entry or Claim made by the Heir will make a possessio fratris as if the Copy-holder by Licence of the Lord maketh a Lease for years and dyeth and the Son of the first Venter dyeth before the expiration of the Term being neither admitted nor having made any actual Entry or Claim yet this Possession of the Lessee is sufficient and the Reversion shall descend to the Daughter of the first Venter and not to the Son of the second Venter but if the Lease had determined the Son living by the first Venter and afterwards he had dyed before any actual Entry made the Law would have fallen out otherwise because there was a time when he might have lawfully entred The same Law was as to the possession of a Guardian Heir before Admittance is not a compleat Tenant to all purposes But yet the Heir before Admittance is not a compleat Tenant to all intents and purposes for before that he cannot be sworn of the Homage and he cannot maintain a Pleint in the nature of an Assise in the Lords Court till he is admitted Co. Cop. As there may be possessio fratris c. before the Heirs Admittance so there may be a Tenant by the Curtesie Dyer f. 292. before Admittance of the Feme More n. 425. By Hales in the Case of Blackburn and Greaves Modern Rep. 120. If a Surrender be to the Use of A. for Life the Remainder to his eldest Son c. or to the Use of A. and his Heirs and then A. dyes the Estate is in the Son without Admittance whether he takes by Purchase or Descent One seized of a Copy-hold Tenement in right of his Wife in his Demesn as of Fee surrenders this Copy-hold Tenement without his Wife to the Use of a Stranger in Fee who was admitted by the Lord accordingly Husband dyes and Wife dyes the Heir of the Wife without Admittance enters on the Stranger and made a Lease and good Popham 39. Bullock and Dibler This is no such discontinuance against the Heir as to put the Heir to a Plaint in the nature of a cui in vita it s no more than a Grant which passeth no more than his own Estate and the Heir may intermeddle with the Possession before Admittance Upon a Custom to surrender to two Copy-holders out of Court Surrender to the Heir as a Copy-hold Tenant is good before Admittance Heir may enter and have Trespass before Admittance a Surrender to the Heir of a Copy-holder before Admittance is good 1 Keb. 25. Munifas and Baker Copy-holder dyes the Lord admits a Stranger the Heir may enter and upon re-entry maintain a Trespass without Admittance Noy p. 172. Simpson and Gillion He shall have Trespass and this before his Admittance upon Descent 2 H. 4.12 Pl. 49. 4 Rep. 23. b. Cro. El. 349. Berry and Green When the Heir shall be in by Purchase and not by descent If a Copy-holder of Inheritance surrender this to the Use of another and his Heirs and he to whom the Surrender is made dyes before Admittance and after the Lord admits his Heir he shall be in by Purchase and not by Descent for he is in by the Lord for nothing was in his Father by the Surrender before Admittance 1 Rolls Abr. 827. More 's Case Where there needs no Admittance In the Cases of the Heir per Descent Vide supra When one comes in as of an old Estate A. surrenders Copy-hold into the hands of the Lord and the Lord de novo re-grants the same to A. for Life and afterwards to J. his Wife during the non-age of the Son and Heir of A. and after to the Son and Heir in Tayl. A. dyes the Child being 5 years old Now the Wife is to have the said Lands for 16 years by force of the said Surrender and Admittance The Wife took another Husband and dyed Per Cur. The Husband shall have the Land during the non-age of the Infant and that without any Admittance for that he is not in of any new Estate but in the Estate of his Wife as Assignee 3 Leon. p. 9. Dedicot's Case If a Copy-holder be for years and maketh his Executors Executors and dyeth the Executors shall have the Term without any Admittance Sed Quaere for Weston in this point was against Dyer and Brown Joynt-Tenants Release One Joynt-Copy-holder released to his Companion and it was resolved That the Release was good without Surrender or Admittance for the first Admittance is of them and every of them and the ability to Release was from the first Conveyance and Admittance Winch p. 3. Wase and Pretty In what Cases and to what purposes the Copy-hold Estate shall be in the Tenant before Admittance and to what purposes not and what Leases made by them shall be good Upon Surrender nothing is vested in the Grantee before Admittance Vide supra The Copy-holder upon Surrender if the Lord refuse to admit him He who makes the Surrender continues in possession till Admittance cannot enter without Admittance nor have an Action unless there be a special Custom to warrant it for he who makes the Surrender continues in possession till Admittance and not the Lord or Cesty que use and he shall have Trespass against any that enters Cro. El. 349. Berry and Green If by the Custom of the Manor the Copy-hold ought to descend to the youngest Son and the Copy-holder in Fee surrender this to the Use of himself and his Heirs and dyes before any Admittance upon the Surrender and the youngest Son first enters the eldest may not justifie his entrance upon him before Admittance 1 Rolls Abr. 502. If a Copy-holder surrendreth to the Use
Lord recover his Fine Debt Debt lyes for a Fine against the Copy-holder by the Lord Siderfin p. 58. agreed in the Case of Wheeler and Honor. Copy-holder Heir waves the possession If Copy-holder in Fee dyes where the Fine is certain and the Heir waves the possession and refuseth to be admitted it seems the Lord shall not have an Action of Debt against him and yet some hold he may not wave the possession because being Inheritance Interest descends and for this reason praecipe quod reddat lyes against the Heir at Common Law before his Entry Siderfin p. 58. Wheeler and Honor. Pled Vide Presidents infra Custome quod Dominus habeat rationabilem finem pro admissione Co. Ent. 646. 13 Rep. 1. CAP. XIX Of the Entayling of Copy-hold Estates The different Opinion of the Judges with an Abstract of the Reasons and Arguments how Copy-holds are or may be Entayled and the Law setled as to that Point How such Copy-hold Entayls may be barred or dock'd And what acts of Tenant Copy-holder in Tayl c. shall amount to a Discontinuance or not Of Copy-hold Estates being Entayled AS to Copy-hold Lands being Entayled whether there be any such Estate Tayl by any particular Custom to be allowed and how such Entayls arose it hath been vexatio quaestio This Question hath been curiously debated in our Books and therefore I shall be the larger upon it It is clear That the Statute de donis per se doth not create an Estate Tayl in a Copy-hold 9 Rep. 105. the Case of Thornton and Lucas there cited for the Statute de donis doth not extend to such base Estates at will The Question is if the Statute may co-opperate with the Custom as to make an Estate Tayl. Coke in the Case of Warn and Sawyer 1 Rolls Rep. 48. cited one Haslerick and Grays Case to be so adjudged and in one Hills Case a Custom was pleaded that a Copy-hold might be granted to one and the Heirs of his Body with remainder over but saith he we of the other side durst not hazard the matter upon this but we devised a Plea That there was another Custom there that if a Tenant in Tayl alien this shall be a bar to the Remainder and upon issue that Custom was found for it was agreed Per totam Curiam That if an Estate Tayl may be of a Copy-hold by Custom that by a Custom it may be dock'd and destroyed It hath been often moved in our Books When a Copy-holder in Fee surrenders to the Use of one in Tayl there being no Custom to warrant such an Entayl whether it be an Estate Tayl by the Statute of De donis conditionalibus or a Fee-simple conditional at the Common Law This point is well argued and setled in Rowden and Malster's Case Cro. Car. p. 42. Copy-hold cannot be Entayled within the Statute de donis Yelverton held That it was an Estate Tayl by the Equity and intent of the Statute de donis but Hutton Harvy and Croke That it was not an Entayl but a Fee-simple conditional at Common Law 1. Because it would be prejudicial to Lords for by this means the tenure would be altered for the Donee in Tayl without a special reservation ought to hold of the Donor by the same Services that the Donor holdeth over and he who comes in by Surrender and the Admittance of the Lord to hold to him and the Heirs of his Body cannot hold of him who surrendred but shall hold of the Lord and is Tenant at will unto him and shall do the Services unto him as Lord. 2. In respect of the baseness of their Estate the Statute never intended to provide remedy for them nor their Alienations for the words of the Statute are Quod voluntas donatoris in Charta sua manifeste expressa de caetero observetur which proveth that the intent of the makers of the Statute was That no Hereditament should be intayled within this Statute but such as either was or might be given by Charter or Deed and other Reasons out of the words of the Statute Carters Rep. 8. But Copy-holds are no such Hereditaments and therefore not within the meaning of the Act. 3. If Copy-holds might be Entayled then the perpetuity of such Estates might be maintained for a Fine cannot be levied of Copy-hold Lands to bar the Entayl nor can a Recovery in value be intended of such an Estate where warranty cannot be annexed to it Ceo reason come jeo pense ne vault rien pas Car est agree per touts que poet estre dock't per recovery en curia del Baron Vide apres They held also That neither Estate Tayl nor Estate after possibility of issue extinct which had a necessary dependance upon an Estate Tayl can by any particular Custom be allowed Cave Lecteur for it s agreed by all That a Custom co-operating with the Statute may create an Estate Tayl. Observe Plowden in Manxel's Case is no Law 2 Rolls Rep. 383. mesme Case Co. Lit. 60. As there may be an Estate Tayl by Custom with the co-operation of the Statute of W. 2. Cap. 1. So may he have a Formedon in discender i. e. a Writing in the nature of a Formedon in Descender in the Lords Court But as the Statute without a Custom extendeth not to Copy-holds so a Custom without the Statute cannot create an Estate Tayl. Now it is not a sufficient proof that Lands have been granted in Tayl for albeit Lands have anciently and usually been granted by Copy to many men and to the Heirs of their Bodies that may be a Fee-simple conditional as it was at the Common Law but if a Remainder hath been limited over such Estates and enjoyed or if the Issues in Tayl have avoided the alienation of the Ancestor or if they have recovered the same in Writs of Formedon in the Discender these and such like are proofs of an Estate Tayl But if by Custom Copy-hold may be Entayled the same by like Custom may be cut off Plow Com. 240. This was the first Opinion and by Clench and Gaudy agreed to in Grovener's Case Popham 32. The other Opinion is That an Estate is wrought out by the Equity of the Statute de donis for otherwise it cannot be that there should be any Estate Tayl of Copy-hold Land for by Usage it cannot be maintained because that no Estate Tayl was known in Law before this Statute and after this Statute it cannot be by Usage because this is within the time of limitation aftet which an Usage cannot make a Prescription for a Custom cannot be made after the Statute de donis And it appeareth by Littleton and Brook That a Plaint lyes of Copy-hold Land in the nature of a Formedon in Discender at Common Law and therefore the Statue helps them for their remedy for Entayled Lands which is but customary by Equity and if the Action shall be given by Equity for this Land why shall not the
Statute by Equity work to make it an Estate Tayl also of this nature of the Land Popham's Rep. 33. Gravenor and Brooks so Bullen and Grant's Case A Copy-holder Surrendred to the Use of J. for Life the Remainder to H. and the Heirs of his Body it was a Question if this Estate limitted to H. was an Estate Tayl or a Fee-simple conditional for if it were a Fee-simple conditional then there cannot be an other Estate over but yet in Case of a Devise an Estate may depend upon a Fee-simple precedent but not as a Will but as an executory Devise Per Wray it is an Estate Tayl. Coke then said They who would prove the Custom to Entayl Copy-hold Lands within a Manor it is not sufficient to shew Copies of Grants to persons and the Heirs of their Bodies but they ought to shew that Surrenders made by such persons have been avoided by such matter But by Wray that is not so for customary Lands may be granted in Tayl and yet no Surrenders have been made within time of memory 1 Leon. p. 174. Bullen and Grant Cro. El. 148. mesme Case Heyden's Case in 3 Rep. 8. is clear That neither Statute without the Custom nor the Custom without the Statute but both co-operating may create Tayl. And as for Custom if the Custom be to grant Lands in Fee-simple this without question may be granted to one and the Heirs of his Body by Copy for omne majus includit minus My Lord Chief Justice Bridgman seems to argue this point very accutely and succinctly in Carters Rep. 22. Taylor and Shaws Case First says he a Copy-hold may be Entayled not Entayled as within the Statute of W. 2. nor by vertue of any Construction of the Statute W. 2. but there may be such an Estate before W. 2. of a Copy-hold which is a kind of base Estate and which might be grantable to one and the Heirs of his Body according to the Custom and if he dyed without Issue it might be aliened again and that a Copy-holder could not bar his Issue unless by a Recovery such an Estate might be by Custom I hold saith he That the Evidence may fall out to be such that we may take it for granted that Lands granted by Copy to one and the Heirs of his Body the Remainder over may be a good Remainder and the Reversion may continue in the Copy-holder the Donor may have a good Reversion and all this without the help of W. 2. That which confirms me is the constant practice of most Copyholds to have Estates over As for the reason of it if we shall give in Evidence for the purpose a Surrender in H. 7ths time wherein Lands are limited to one and the Heirs of his Body the Remainder over this is an Evidence that it was so in H. 7ths time and we have reason to think so it was past time of memory of Man And as your Evidence is for Custom so may your Case be to make an immemorial Custom Then all the Question is whether it will bear it or not In this Case of a Copy-hold being an Estate at will you may have it at will according to the nature of the Custom it is not against the Analogy and Reason of the Law and it may bear it the Evidence may be such If in H. 7th or E. the 4ths time it appears so it is a good warrant for matter of Evidence for a Jury to find That there were such Copy-hold Estates with limitation over Now before the Statute of W. 2. it had been a good Custom to grant Copy-hold to one and the Heirs of his Body the Remainder over or to grant the Land by the name of a Reversion for here is no alteration of Common Law Estates The reasonableness of this Custom appears by the Statute of W. 2. That Act doth not create the Estate Proofs of an Estate Tayl. neither a Remainder nor a Reversion but the Act prohibiting Alienations Quo minus ad exitum illorum quibus tenementum sic fuerit datum remaneat post obitum illorum vel ad donatorem si exitus ejus deficiat revertatur by operation of Law it comes to a Remainder or Reversion if by Custom such Estates may remain or revert so may Copy-holds by Custom because they are Tenants at will Now as by that construction W. 2. did make a Remainder or a Reversion so the Custom of prohibiting Alienations by Copy may make Reversions or Remainders of Copy-hold Estates If the Reader hath a mind to see other Cases about the Entayling of Copy-holds though they are all reduced to what is before cited he may peruse 2 Brownl 42 76. Keymer and Poel 121. Hill and Upchurch 1 Rolls Rep. 48. Warn and Sawyer Cro. El. 717. Erish and Rives c. 2 Brownl 121. The Law about Entayling of Copy-holds is setled and agreed by the Judges B. R. 17 Car. 2. Newton and Shaftoe's Case That it is by Custom and not by the Statute so agreed M. 18. Car. Pilkington and Stanhop's Case queux vide apres Of docking or barring Copy-hold Estates being barred by Fine or Recovery or otherwise It is agreed by all the Judges 1 Rolls Rep. 48. Warn and Sawyer's Case That if an Estate Tayl may be of a Copy-hold by Custom that by Custom it may be dock'd and destroyed See More n. 877. A Copy-hold may be Entayled by Custom and barred by a Recovery by special Custom and it was agreed that a Surrender may bar the Issue by special Custom Chard and Wyat so Lee and Brown M. 15 Jac. B. R. And it was agreed to be a strong proof of the Custom that they to whose Use such Surrenders had been made had enjoyed the Land against the Issue in Tayl 1 Rolls Abr. 506. mesme Case The Custom of the Manor of Wakefield was That they may Entayl their Copy-hold Lands and the Custom of the Manor to bar the Entayls and the Remainders there is That the Tenant in Tayl shall commit a Forfeiture as by making a Lease without Licenc c. and then for the Lord to make three Proclamations and to seize the Copyhold and then to grant this to the Copy-holder and his Heirs allowed to be a good Custom Also this Custom there was good That if Tenant in Tayl make a Surrender to a Purchaser and his Heirs of his Copy-hold and such Purchasor intending to bar the Entayl and the Remainders commits a Forfeiture upon which there is a seizure by the Lord and three Proclamations c. and so for him to grant these were adjuged good Customs though the Tenant in Tayl nor his Issue are privy See as to this last Custom in a Tryal at Bar in Ejectment Siderfin p. 314. Lessee of Pilkington contra Stanhop So in Ejectment in Grantham and Coplies Case 2 Sanders 422. And it was faâ—ther adjudged If such Forfeiture be presented in the Copy-hold Court and the Land seized in Manus Domini the Lord may not
admit any other but him to whom it is limited and assigned by the Tenant who made such Forfeiture and the Lord cannot dispose of it otherwise And farther That if the Lord admit any other and after sells the Manor to a Stranger by whom Cesty que use is admitted Cesty que use hath a good Title and shall avoid all mean acts and dispositions made by the Lord as he should if a Surrender had been made to his Use ibid. Mr. Keble in the Reporting of this Case of Coply's 2.823 saith A Surrender is to the Lord to the intent quod inde faciat voluntatem yet by Custom the Surrenderer by Petition or Declaration may direct it to any person whatever and the Lord must pursue it and there is no Estate in the Lord but it remains in the Tenants hands till Admittance of such party and the Purchasor might come in at any time The Case of Taylor and Shaw in Carters Rep. 6 22. The like Custom is adjudged void but that was upon a fault in the special Verdict Tenant in Tayl of Copy-hold Lands the Jury find a Custom That this is to be barred by seizure of the Lord as a Forfeiture non alio modo and not otherwise as the Lord Chief Justice Bridgman well observed and that being naught the whole Custom is in vain As for his first Reason of such a Custom being void that its a precarious Custom you must have the concurrence of the Lord or you cannot do it and Custom implies Right though this is of weight yet it might have been objected in Pilkinton's Case and Grantham's Case yet in these Cases such Custom is adjudged good But his second Reason is cogent by this negative Custom you destroy that which is essential to the Estate If you will allow a customary Tayl you must allow a customary Recovery and so this Case differs from those others Now these ways of barring Entayled Copy-holds are in nature of a Recovery to dock the Entayl But Rolls Opinin in Stiles 450. Pilkington and Bagshaws Case is not Law he conceived there could be no such Custom to cut off Entayled Lands of Copy-hold by the Forfeiture and seizure of the Lord for his seizure upon the forfeiture destroys the Copy-hold Estate at Common Law Modus Conventio vincunt Legem And therefore It was made a Question in Dell and Heydon's Case If Tenant in Tayl of a Copy-hold Remainder in Fee is impleaded by plaint in a Court Baron in nature of a Writ of Entry in the Post The manner how and the reason why a Recovery shall bar a Copy-hold Estate and suffers a Common Recovery with Voucher whether if Tenant in Tayl dye sans issue this shall bind the Remainder Cro El. p. 372. But Rolls in 1 Abr. 506. in the same Case saith this may be barred by a Common Recovery for a warranty may be annexed upon this by a Surrender to an Use or by a confirmation or by Release with Warranty and it may be intended he shall have other Copy-hold in value And Sir Francis More in the Report of this Case saith if Tenenant in Tayl come in as Vouchee this is a bar to the Issues and Remainder Surrender with warranty to an Use and grant accordingly makes the party in the per by the Surrenderor and upon this Warranty the Surrenderor may be vouched and Recovery in value shall be only of other Copy-hold Lands in the Manor No. 488. and in 4 Rep. mesme Case it s adjudged that such Recovery shall make a Discontinuance and shall take away the Entry of the Heir in Tayl. If a Copy-holder surrenders in Tayl and the Heir of the Donee is to bring a Formedon he ought to count of a Gift made by the Copy-holder who surrendred and not by the Lord for he is but the Instrument to convey it and nothing passeth from him Cro. El. 361. Paulter and Cornhil And yet in the Case of Clun and Pease adjudged since Dell and Higden's Case Per totam Curiam A Recovery with common Voucher in a Plaint in nature of a Writ of Entry in Curia Manerij shall not bind the Issue in Tayl for it shall not bind but upon expectancy of a Recovery in value which is the reason it binds for Land at the Common Law and here he cannot have any Land in value neither at Common Law nor customary Land for if it should be so Conveyed the Lord should lose his Fine and one should hold his Land as a Copy-holder without Admittance or Grant from the Lord which is contrary to the nature of a Copy-hold but it s a Discontinuance clearly which cannot be defeated by Entry Cro. El. p. 391. Now as a Feoffment will not destroy a Copy-hold Estate Entayled so neither a Fine or Recovery at Common Law It doth not make any Discontinuance Copy-hold Estate how discontinued or not for these being Common Law Assurances they do not work upon the Assurance of the Copy-hold and that that doth not work upon the right of the Estate Tayl cannot make a Discontinuance And the same reason of a Fine which is but a Feoffment on Record and the same reason holds a Fine may work to the destruction of an Estate where it is not preserved by special Custom but this is preserved by special Custom so for a Recovery that that is in demand is the Free-hold True if the Recovery were in the Lords Court there the Estate may be turned to a Right and a Recovery at Common Law cannot bar a Copy-hold Estate because of the Recovery in value to which the Warranty is annexed doth not go according to the Copy-hold but according to the Freehold These being Common Law Assurances work only a Common Law Interest and cannot work upon a Copy-hold this is the Abstract of Glin's Argument in Taylor and Shaw's Case Carter's Rep. How Copy-hold barred by a Fine at Common Law But the Lord Chief Justice Bridgman in that Case put a nice difference as to the barring Entayled Copy by a Fine at Common Law if a Copy-hold be suspended while it is in suspence a Fine at Common Law bars it for one cannot be a Copy-holder in Tayl and have the Inheritance of Freehold in himself it must be suspended for a time as if he divide the Copy-hold from the Freehold for a time and he there gave a notable difference Difference as to what may pass by a Fine or be barred by a Fine where a man may pass a thing by a Fine and where he may bar by a Fine a right of Copy-hold cannot be passed by a Fine but may be barred by a Fine A man that hath a Rent-charge he levies a Fine of the Land the Rent-charge is gone by it yet the Fine is not levied of the Rent but of the Land as for his other Reason from the words of the Statute 32 H. 8 Of Lands any ways Entayled c. I conceive that cannot extend to Copy-hold Lands Carter's
allowed Hetly p. 54. M. 3 Car. B. C. Davis and Fortescue Lord of the Manor made a Lease to two of the Copy-holders of the Court Baron for 200 years Lessees of Copy-hold and Court-Baron for 200 years what acts they may do saving to himself the other Demesns and Services the Lessees keep Court there and a Copy-holder surrenders to the Use of A. in Fee Per Cur. this is a good Copy the Court may well continue for that purpose as to Admittance of Copy-holders for otherwise every one of his own act may destroy his Copyholders Estate Cro. El. p. 394. Jackson and Neal and Lord Hatton's Case cited there If the Lord of a Manor grants a Copy-hold Who shall have the Rent rendring Rent praefato Domino at a certain time servitia de jure debita consueta his Heirs and Assigns after his death shall have this Rent this being reserved by a Copy 2 Rolls Abr. 450. Crisp and Fryar Copy-holder makes a Lease rendring Rent Avowry by the Lord for part of his Rent and after surrenders parcel to the Lord the Lord may avow on the Lessee for part of this Rent without alledging notice or attornment by him 1 Keb. 94. Blat and Mole vide The Lord may Distrain a Copy-holder for his Rent as well as Seize Quaere Distress if a man makes a Lease at will rendring Rent whether he may Distrain for this Rent 2 Brownl p. 279. Ravel and Downe Entry Acceptance of Rent The Lord after acceptance of Rent cannot enter upon the Lessee of a Copy-holder 1 Keb. 15. Whether the accustomed Rent be reserved upon a Lease by a Bishop Lord of the Manor Treacer was a Copy-hold Manor within the Manor of B. The Bishop of Exeter held both these Manors in the right of his Bishoprick the old accustomed Rent was 67 l. 1 s. 5 d. Hall Bishop demised these two Manors to P. for 99 years determinable upon three Lives reserving the old Rent P. assigns them over to N. except the Demesns of Treacer N. surrenders both Manors except Treacer The Bishop re-demiseth to him the said Manors except Treacer and one Farm more reserving the old Rent 67 l. 1 s. 5 d. Per Cur. this second Lease was good and the 67 l. 1 s. 5 d. was the old accustomed Rent within the Statute 1 El. Mod. Rep. 203. Thredneedle and Lynham Of Leases made by a Copy-holder and of Rents reserved thereupon vide Customs When Leases made by a Copy-holder for Years are a Forfeiture Vide sub Tit. Forfeiture Note Lease no disseisin A Copy-holders Lease is no Disseisin though it be a Forfeiture nor doth it alter the Estate of the Lord 2 Keb. 598. Note Lease not Assets Copy-holder made a Lease for years by License and Lessee dyed this shall not be accounted Assets in the hands of the Executors Quaere Nor be extended Popham 188. But if Copy-holder make a Lease for an year this is a Lease by the Common Law and not customary and shall be accounted Assets in the Hands of the Executors of the Lessee Popham 188. Yelv. What Leases shall be good or not in respect of Licence when it is persued or not Copy-holder may make a Lease for one year without Licence for that is warranted by the Law by the force of the general Custom of the Realm Lit. 234. and this shall be accounted Assets in the Hands of the Executors of the Lessee If the Lord give Licence to a Coph-holder for Life to let the Copy-hold for five years the Copy-holder may Lease this for three years for this is comprehended within the Licence inasmuch as he had given him Licence to let for more years M. 15 Jac. B. R. Woolridg and Bambridge adjudged upon a special Verdict so it was adjudged in the same Case Cro. Jac. 417. If the Lord give Licence to a Copy-holder for Life to Lease the Copy-hold for five years if the Copy-holder shall so long live and he lets this for five years generally without this limitation If he shall so long live yet this is a good pursuance of the Licence and so a good performance for the Lease is determinable by his death by a limitation in Law and therefore so much is implied by the Law as if he had made the actual limitation So is the Case of Hart and Arrowsmith Noy 121. the operation of Law made such a limitation to the Estate which he made i. e. if he shall live so long But if the Copy-holder had had an Estate in Fee it had been a Forfeiture to have made an absolute Lease because in this case he doth more than he was licenced to do Popham Rep. 105. A Lease not warranted by the Licence as to the commencement A. obtains a Licence in Court to let his Copy-hold for 21 years from Mich. last past he makes the Lease to begin at Christmass following Per Cur. this Lease 〈◊〉 not warranted by this Licence and so no Eject firmae lyes upon it Cro. El. p. 394. Jackson and Neal. Commencement When a Lease shall begin in point of computation and not in point of Interest Land is demised by Copy for three Lives successive and then a Lease is made for 30 years of the same Land to commence after the determination of the first Estate the Survivor dyes leaving a Widow who claims durante viduitate according to the Custom The Quaere was when this Lease shall begin if after the death of the Copy-holder or after the determination of the customary Estate in the Woman It shall commence presently in point of computation but not in point of interest till after the death of the Widow 2 Siderfin Clark and Caudle Capel and Stephens 1653. By Tenant in Tayl if warranted by the Stat. 32 H. 8. Arthur Copy-holder for Life surrenders to Sir Francis Knolls Knight Lord of the Manor in Tayl Reversion in the Crown Sir Francis makes a Lease for three Lives to commence from the day of the date and of the ancient Copy-hold Rent was reserved and more Three Questions were moved by the Jury 1. Per Cur. If this Land shall be said usually demised within the Statute 32 H. 8. being never demised before but by Copy And the Court ruled that so 2. If this Copy-hold Rent shall be said the ancient accustomed Rent within the Statute and ruled that so 3. Though an Herriot was not reserved in the new Lease which was payable by the Copy-hold Custom yet it was resolved that it was a good Lease within the Statute of 32 H. 8. if Livery was made after the day of the date Moor n. 1050. Banks and Brown The Land is accountable usually demisable when it is always demised it was Sir James Marvin's Case Tenant in Tayl lets a Copy-hold by Indenture rendring the same Rent as before it s a good Lease within the Statute of 32 H. 8. A Manor by Act of Parliament was Entayled to A. Wife of
Plaintiff replyed That the Copy-holder by Licence first then had of the Lord did demise and did not shew what Estate the Lord had nor the time and place when it was made it is not good for the Licence is traversable The Defendant cannot plead That the Plaintiff by Licence did not demise for this is a negative pregnant 2 Browl. 40. Petty and Evans Licentia dat ad dimittendas terras custumarias Co. Ent. 185. CAP. XXII Of Forfeitures What shall amount to a Forfeiture of a Copy-hold Estate by act of the Party by non-feazance or misfeazance Of refusal of Writ Services c. Non-Appearance at Courts Of making Leases not warranted Rent shall be said a Covenant and no Lease and so shall be no Forfeiture VVhat Alienation shall be a Forfeiture or not Of Forfeiture by wast in Trees By Attainder of the Tenant What act of the Husband shall forfeit the Wifes Land or not Who shall take advantage of a Forfeiture Where the Lord shall take advantage before a Presentment or not VVhere the Forfeiture of one Copy-holder shall be the Forfeiture of another as to Estates or Persons What is a dispensation of a Forfeiture and of what Forfeitures in the Life of the Ancestor the Heir shall take advantage Of Forfeitures What shall amount to a Forfeiture of a Copy-hold Estate BY act of the Party By Operatation of the Law What act of the Party respecting Non-Feazance Mis-Feazance Of refusal to pay Rent perform Services or Suit of Court when they shall be causes of Forfeitures or not A Copy-holder hath an Inheritance by Custom but when he doth that which is contrary to the Custom as to cut down Trees c. he shall then be in no better a condition than a bare Tenant at will and so it will be a Forfeiture If a Copy-holder be to pay a certain Rent yearly by his Copy to the Lord and the Lord comes upon the Land and demands the Rent at the day if the Copy-holder being present refuseth to pay it this is a Forfeiture but if in such Case the Copy-holder saith to the Lord he hath not his Rent ready this is not any Forfeiture for the Lord may Distrain 1 Rolls Abr. 506. therefore the Case in Cokes Copy-holder p. 189. is not Law which saith That if the Copy-holder tells his Lord that he wanteth Mony to discharge the Rent and intreateth him to forbear unless the Lord giveth his consent that this is a Forfeiture vide Noy p. 58. Crispe and Fryar Cro. El. 505. mesme Case A Widow had Copy-hold Land and knew not how to pay her Rent and divers persons came for the Rent but she dismist them with dilatory Answers last of all comes a young Gallant and demands the Rent she answers That she did not know him but if he would dance before her if she liked his dancing she would pay it This denyal was adjudged no Forfeiture not being wilful Lit. Rep. 268 in Paston and Uthert's Case Voluntary refusal If the Copy-holder be absent when the Lord demands the Rent at a day and none is there to pay it this is a refusal in Law yet this is no Forfeiture for this amounts not to a voluntary refusal and there ought to be a demand of the person of the Copy-holder to make a Forfeiture Hob. p. 135. Denny and Lemon p. 38. El. B. R. Crisp and Fryer And therefore that other Assertion in Cokes Copy-holder p. 190 That if the Lord continue in making his demand upon the Land and the Copy-holder is still absent Absence that this makes the Copy-holders Estate subject to a Forfeiture seems not to be Law for the Lord may have other remedy for his Rent William's Case cited in Latch 122. Grey and Ulisses was thus The Lord demanded the Rent of his Copy-holder and he answered that he had it not with him then but that he would pay it as soon as he could the Lord said pay this at my House such a day which House was within the Manor it was resolved that the first words were not any Forfeiture Notice to pay the Rent at a place out of the Manor but when the Lord assigned him a day certain at which day he pays it not this failure amounts to a wilful refusal and was a Forfeiture But had the place been out of the Manor it had been no Forfeiture which Crew Chief Justice agreed to Copy-holder in Fee rendring Rent at Michaelmas and Lady-day Not paid at the last instant of the day he suffers the Rent to be unpaid for three years the Lord at the last Instant of the day of payment demands the Rent upon the Land and the Copy-holder is not there to pay it the better Opinion was that it is a Forfeiture Moor n. 468. Crisp and Fryar An Act which makes a Forfeiture ought to be to the disherison of the Lord of his Copy-hold not of a collateral thing Copy-holds are determinable the same way as Estates at Will When a Copy-holder doth acts as Owner not warranted by the Custom 5 Rep. 13. as Waste unless the special Custom aid 2 Keb. 466. Ivery's Case If the Estate of the Lord of the Manor cease by limitation of Use and the Use and Estate of it is transferred to another Notice of the alteration of the use and Estate or else no Forfeiture for denyal of payment of Rent who demands the Rent of the Copy-holder and he denies to pay it this is no Forfeiture without notice given to the Copy-holder of the Use and Estate Beconshaw and Southcot's Case cited in 8 Rep. 92. Francis's Case Bargainee of a Manor by Deed Indented and Inrolled shall not take advantage of the Forfeiture of a Copy-hold for denyal of payment of Rent to him without notice given to him of the Bargain and Sale agreed for Law in Francis's Case 8 Rep. Copy-holder before any Rent due saith he will not pay any Rent to the Lord hereafter What words of denyal amount to a Forfeiture or not or when a Court is to be holden that he will not appear to do any Suit at the Court of the Lord these are no Forfeitures But if his Rent being due he denies it or when the Court is holden he saith he will not do any Suit the same is a Forfeiture Sir Christopher Hatton's Case cited 3 Leon. 108. in Tavernor and Cromwel's Case Vide supra Paston and Utbert's Case In case of the forfeiture of a Copy-hold either for Rent or Fine the Lord must demand the Rent or Fine of the person of the Tenant Fine and therefore in Denny and Lemon's Case Hob. p. 135. Demand must be made of the person of the Tenant In Trespass by the Copy-holder against his Lord the Defendant pleads he had admitted the Copy-holder and assessed a Fine of 20 Nobles upon it and had appointed him to pay it to his Bayliff at his House being within the Manor three Months after and alledged That he
the Surrender and the devise only cannot transfer for such customary Estate 3. After the severance the Copy-holder shall pay his Rent to the Feoffee and other Services which are due without Admittance as Harriot c. But not Fine or Suit of Court After severance Forfeitures continue But such Forfeitures as were Forfeitures before the Severance as Feoffment Lease Waste are Forfeitures after 4 Rep. 24 25. In Lee and Boothby's Case Cro. Car. 521. The Question was If a Copy-holder in Fee surrender to the Lord of the Manor his Copy-hold Estate and the Lord makes a Lease for years of the Manor and of the said Copy-hold by the name of his Tenement called H. whether it was a determination of his Copy-hold Per Curiam it is not because when he lets the Manor it is included as parcel of the Manor the Manor being demised includes the Copy-hold as parcel of the Manor and the naming of the Copy-hold is surplusage But if he though he had been but Dominus pro tempore or for half a year though by parol had made a Lease for years of the Copy-hold by it self that had destroyed the Copy-hold for it was then during that time severed from the Manor and so could never after be demised by Copy Lease for years of a particular Copy-hold by name together with the Manor by the King hath not so extinguished that the Copy-hold though by the surrender of it it is parcel of the Manor in the King but that after such Lease the Patentee of the Reversion may regrant it as Copy-hold 1 Keb. 720. Act of the Lord with consent of the Tenant where it destroys it or not But the act of the Lord with consent and acceptance of the Tenant will destroy the Copy-hold otherwise it shall not prejudice the Copy-holder But in some sense the Copy-holder may assent and yet not be prejudiced as in Howard and Bartlet's Case Hob. 181. The Custom was Copy hold Estate may remain to some purpose notwithstanding the severance from the Freehold if Copy-holders for Life dye seized their Wives shall have this during their Widowhood and A. being Copy-holder for Life the Lord conveys the Freehold and Inheritance of the Copy-hold of A. by the procurement of A. to J. S. a Stranger and his Heirs during the Life of A. Remainder to B. the Wife of A. for Life Remainder to A. and after A. grants the Remainder to W. his Son after this B. the Wife of A. dyes and A. marries C. and dyes seized now though here appears the Copy-holders privity and consent in that he takes the Remainder in Fee and grants it over to his Son that it should be destroyed and though this Copy-hold Estate was destroyed before her marriage yet the viduity of C. is not extinguished for the Freehold being in J. S. during the Life of A. the Estate of A. was not so extinct but the Custom shall continue quoad her The Copy-hold Estate here remains notwithstanding the severance from the Free-hold and though the Remainder was in him and he granted it over yet he lived and dyed a Copy-holder Hobart p. 181. Howard and Bartlet 1 Rolls Abr. 510. Cro. Jac. 573. the same Case by the name of Waldee and Bartlet Copy-holder in Tayl accepts a Feoffment from the Lord it destroys not the Copy-hold so as to conclude his Issue Carters Rep. 6 7. 2. By the act of the Copy-holder If a Copy-holder accept a Lease for years of his Copy-hold Acceptance of a Lease by this his Copy-hold is destroyed whether it be immediately from the Lord or mediately as was Lane's Case 2 Rep. 16. b. The King seized of a Manor in Fee grants Copy-hold Lands parcel of this Manor to another in Fee by Copy of Court Roll according to the Custom of the Manor And after the King by his Letters Patents under the Exchequer Seal makes a Lease for 21 years to another of these Lands the Lessee grants his Term to the Copy-holder afterwards Queen Elizabeth reciting the Lease for 21 years grants the Reversion in Fee the 21 years expire and the Patentee of the Reversion enters upon the Copy-holder his Entry adjudged good for Per Cur. by the acceptance of the Term by the Copy-holder the Copy-hold Estate was determined as well as if the Copy-holder had immediately accepted a Lease for years of his Copy-hold The reason of the Extinguishment the reason is the same in both Cases A Copy-hold Interest and an Estate for years of one and the same Land may not stand together in one and the same person at one time without confounding the lesser and if one of them ought to be determined it ought to be the Copy-hold Estate Also they are of divers natures and so cannot stand together in the same person the Estate at the Common-Law cannot drown it being the more worthy than the customary Estate and the customary must Vide mesme Case in Anderson 1 Rep. 191. and 1 Leon. 170. So it was resolved in Hide and Newport's Case A Copy-holder in Fee took a Lease for years of the Manor the Copy-hold is extinct for ever and not only during the Lease Moor Rep. n. 330. Acceptance to hold the Land by Bill and not by Copy Copy-holder accepts to hold his Land by Bill under the Lords Hand and not by Copy this determines the Copy-hold 1 Anderson 199. Colman and Bedil If a Copy-holder takes a Lease for years of the Manor by this his Copy-hold is destroyed 4 Rep. 21. French's Case But such Lessee may re-grant the Copy-hold to whom he will for the Land was always demised and demisable If the Lord make a Lease for Life to the Copy-holder by parol this shall confound the Copy-hold if Livery be made otherwise not Latch 213. If there be a Lease for years of the Manor and one of the Copy-holders doth purchase the Reversion in Fee by this the Copy-hold is destroyed and the Lessee of the Manor shall oust the Copy-holder and hold the Land for the time Calth p. 97. By the Tenants Release to the Lord. By the Copy-holders Release to the Lord. If a Copy-holder releaseth to his Lord that extinguisheth his Copy-hold although it be contrary to the nature of a Release to give possession Hutton p. 81. Or to a Purchasor The Lord sells the Freehold interest of a Copy-holder of Inheritance unto another so as it is divided from the Manor and afterwards the Copy-holder releaseth to the Purchaser by it the Copy-hold Interest is extinct but if the Lord be disseised and the Copy-holder releaseth to the Disseisor Nihil operatur 1 Leon. 102. Wakeford's Case Cro. Eliz. 21. For if a Copy-holder is ousted and so the Lord is disseised and the Copy-holder releaseth all his right to the disseisor and dyes his Heir Enters and brings an Action of Trespass against the disseisor who pleads his Frank-tenement Per Cur. the Release is void the disseisor not being admitted
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
re-grant it to him again If a Copy-hold Escheat to the Lord Escheat and he alien the Manor by Fine Feoffment c. his Alienee may re-grant this Land by Copy for it was always demised or demisable but if it be a particular Copy-hold Estate otherwise as was said in the beginning of this Case 4 Rep. 31. Frenches Case If a Copy-holder sue Execution of a Statute against the Lord of a Manor Not destroyed by execution of the Manor at the Copy-holders Suit and had the Manor in Execution and after the Debt is levied the Interest of the Copy-hold remains Per Manwood Heydon's Case Savills Rep. A Copy-holder in Fee marries a Woman Suspended Seignioress of the Manor and after they suffer a Common Recovery which was to the Use of themselves for Life Remainder over by some the Copy-hold is extinct for by the Recovery the Husband had gained an Estate of Freehold But Per Cur. by the inter-marriage it was only suspended Cro. El. p. 7. Anonymus If a Copy-holder accept of a Lease for years of the Manor or marry the Lords Wife by this the Copy-hold is not extinct but suspended If a Copy-hold be granted to three for Lives Suspended and the first of them take an Estate by Deed with livery from the Lord by this the Copy-hold for that Life is suspended Dyer 30. 4 Rep. 31. No prejudice to the Wife or to him in reversion Baron seized of a Manor in right of his Feme let Copy-hold Land parcel thereof for years by Indenture and dyed this doth not destroy the Custom as to the Wife but that after the death of her Husband she may demise by Copy as before So If Tenant pur vie of a Manor let a Copy-hold parcel of the Manor for years and dyes it shall not destroy the Custom as to him in Reversion Cro. El. P. 38 Eliz. Conesby and Rusketh for being Tenant pur vie he may not do wrong by destroying of Customs King H. 8. grants Lands being parcel of Copy-hold of a Manor without reciting this to be Copy-hold to Sir J. G. pur vie Sir J. G. morust Queen Mary grants the Manor to Susan Tenny in Fee who let the Manor for years to Lee. Lee before his years expired grants the Land in question to R. L. in Fee according to the Custom of the Manor Lee's years expire R. L. let to Field at will and the Defendant enters as Heir to Tenny Judgment pro Quer. Suspension and not Destruction of a Custom Kings Prerogative The Grant of the King is but a suspension and no destruction of the Custom And though the Maxim is It ought to be demised and demisable c. yet this holds not in the case of the King 2 Siderfin p. 142. Vide contra 1 Rolls Abr. 498. Downcliff and Minors Vide sub Tit. Grants by the Lord. As to the escheating of Copy-holds after escheating it cannot properly be called a Copy-hold Escheat except it be because there is power in him to re-grant it as Copy-hold Were it by Custom that the Wife shall be endowed of the intierty or moiety and such customary Copy-hold Lands Escheat and the Husband dyes The Wife not to be endowed after Escheat his Wife shall not be endowed of the intierty or moiety because the Custom as to her is extinct 2 Siderfin 19. A Copy-hold Escheated may be demised notwithstanding the Lords Continuance of it in his Hands above 20 years 2 Keb. 213. Pemble and Stern Note If the Copy-holder of a Manor hath had time out of memory Copy-hold extinct but not a Way over the Copy-hold Land a Way over the Land of another Copy-holder and he purchaseth the Inheritance of his Copy-hold by which the Copy-hold is extinct yet by this the Way is not extinct 1 Rolls Abr. 933. Empson and Williamson CAP. XXIV How and where Copy-holder shall hold his Lands charged or not by the Lord or Copy-holders as Dowers Rent-charges Statutes And how and where they shall be avoided THE Lord of a Manor in which were Copy-holders for Lives takes a Wife Dower of the Lords Wife and after a Copy-holder dyes the Lord after Coverture grants the Lands again according to the Custom of the Manor for Lives and dyes the Lords Widow shall not avoid these Grants in a Writ of Dower yet the Custom which is the Life of the Grant was long before 4 Rep. 24. If Feoffee of a Manor upon Condition make voluntary Grants of Copy-hold Estates according to Custom and after the Condition is broken By Feoffee a Manor upon condition and Feoffee re-enters yet the Grants by Copy shall stand Earl of Arundel's Case cited in Co. 4 Rep. 24. Copy-holder by voluntary grant not subject to the Lords Charges The Copy-holder which comes in by voluntary Grant shall not be subject to the Charges or Incumbrances of the Lord before the Grant 8 Rep. 63. Swain's Case Lord of a Manor where the Custom was of Land demisable for one two or three Lives that he that was first named in the Copy should enjoy it only for his Life and so the second The Remainder preserves the Estate from Charges c. grants it to J. P. and E. and M. his Daughters for their Lives if the Lord had charged the Inheritance of the Copy-hold J. P. shall not hold it charged during his Life for the mean Estates in Remainder preserve the Estate of J. P. by Copy from the Incumbrances of the Lord 9 Rep. 107. Margaret Podger's Case Rent charge Earl of W. seized of Manor by Copy grants a Rent-charge to Sir W. Cordel for the term of his Life and conveys the Manor to Sir W. Clifton in Tayl the Rent is behind Sir W. Cordrel dyes the Manor descends to Sir John Clifton who grants a Copy-hold to H. The Executors of Sir W. Cordel distrain for the Rent Per Cur. the Copy-holder shall hold the Land charged 2 Leon. p. 152. and 109. Cordel and Clifton But it hath been adjudged That the Wife of the Lord shall not be endowed against the Copy-holder for the Title of Dower is not consummated before the death of the Husband so as the Title of Copy-holder is compleated before the Title of Dower and in this Case the Seisin and possession continues in Sir John Clifton who claims only by Sir William Clifton who was the Tenant in Demesn who ought to pay the Rent Lord and Copy-holder for Life be the Lord grants a Rent-charge out of the Manor Rent charge by the Lord upon the Manor whereof the Copy-hold is parcel the Copy-holder surrenders to the Use of A. who is admitted accordingly he shall not hold it charged but if the Copy-holder dyeth so that his Estate is determined and the Lord granteth to a Stranger de novo to hold the said Land by Copy this new Tenant shall hold the Land charged 1 Leon. p. 4. Lord of a Manor where Lands were
Rent one of the Cesty que vies dies The Question was whether the Harriot belongs to the Bishop or to W. Per Cur. 1. The Rent issues out of the intire Manor 2. That the Harriot reserved shall go with the Reversion Winch p. 46 57. Bishop of Gloucester against Wood. Pleadings What shall be a good Avowry or Conizance for an Harriot in Replevin or a good Justification in Trespass or not and how to be pleaded If the Lord avow generally for an Harriot without shewing what the Harriot should be whether Beast or other thing its sufficient Hobart p. 176. Shaw and Taylor Exception to an Avowry was for that in it he sets forth That if any Tenant dye seized the Lord is to have an Harriot and shews not of what Estate he should dye seized for in one case it may be an Harriot Custom may be due in another case an Harriot Service But Per Curiam it shews he took them nomine Heriotorum which is good enough 1 Bulstr 101. Sylliard's Case Defendant saith That all the Tenants for Term of Life c. after their deaths have used to pay to him an Harriot the Avowry is insufficient That Tenants should pay after their deaths its repugnant But if he had said That he and all those whose Estate he hath c. have had an Harriot it had been good this is Harriot Custom for Harriot Service is of Tenants in Fee 21 H. 7.13 15. 8 H. 7.10 Avowry by Harriot Service he need not shew what was the Beast he demanded nor the kind or price thereof Cro. Car. 260. Mayor and Brandwood Bar to the Avowry nulla habuit Animalia Quaere Hobart 176. Avowry for three Oxon Separatim pro separalibus Harriot ' Cust tunc 3 Br. 313 333. Prescription for Harriot sur Alienation 8 H. 7.10 Avowry for Harriot Custom hors son Fee is no Plea Vide supra Bend. p. 18. for Harriot Service hors son Fee is a good Plea Up. B. 110. Plowd 96. a. Avowry and Distress for Harriot Service bar by Harriot Custom Plowd 94. Woodland and Mantel Bar for Harriot reserved upon a Demise Tomps f. 257. Custom Pleaded Quod Dominus habeat Harriot Custumar post mortem cujusllibet tenentis Co. Entr. 39.3 Brownl 313 403. Simile si fuerint elongat tunc optimum animal levan cuban super terras Co. Ent. 666. Dier 199. Moor 16. Traverse Traverse tenure by Services alledged Co. Lit. 598 599. Traverse le seisin Quod Pater non fuit seisitus Coke Ent. 613. Plowd 94 95. Traverse le tenure protestando quod non fuit seisitus pro placito dicit quod non tenet c. 3 Brownl 329 349 313. Traverse del Custome 3 Brownl 313. Justification in Trespass Bar. quod Defend Dom. manerij habuit Harriot custom de omnibus tenentibus alienan sine Licentia Ra. Ent. 650. Up. B. 182. Bar by Harriot Custom Post mortem tenentis Co. Ent. 39. The like after the death of Tenant pur vie 3 Brownl 402. Repl. quoad 1 mes hors son fee quoad 2 Mes non est talis consuetudo Up. B. 222. Harriot pleaded in Bar al Trespass 1 Brown 383. 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 HOW the Statute De donis extends to Copy-hold Lands or not Vide sub Tit. West 2. c. De donis Of Copy-holds Intayled It is expresly provided 1 R. 3. c. 4. Of Juries That a Copy-holder having Copy-hold Land to the yearly value of 26 s. 6 d. above all Charges may be impannelled upon a Jury as well as he that hath 20 s. Free-hold But now this is altered by latter Statutes Copy-hold Lands are within the words and intention of the Statute 4 Hen. 7.24 4 H. 7. c. â—4 Of Fines and non-Claim of Fines with Proclamations and five years non-claim and shall be barred as a Lessee for years and his Lessor shall be barred so the Copy-holder and his Lord Covin But if a Copy-holder by assent and covin to bar the Lord of his Inheritance makes a Feoffment and levies a Fine with Proclamations such Fine shall not bar the Lord no more than it shall the Lessor if it be levied by Lessee for the reason in Fermor's Case 3 Rep. f. 77. If a Copy-holder for Life or in Fee be ousted and the Lord be disseised Disseisin and the Disseisor levy a Fine with Proclamations and five years pass as well the Lord as the Copy-holder is barred and the Lord shall not in such case have five years after the death of Tenant pur vie for the Lord may presently have remedy by Action viz. Assise c. and recover the Land and the Lord may without consent or commandment precedent or assent subsequent enter in the name of the Tenant by Copy and his own Right to save their particular Interests as his own Freehold and Inheritance for the Lord is no Stranger but is privy in Estate But not if a Stranger who hath no Right enter c. 9 Rep. 105 106. Margaret Podgers Case The Case was A Copy-hold is granted to A. B. and C. for their Lives suecessive the Lord by Deed Inrolled bargains the Copy-hold to A. in Fee and levies a Fine to him with Proclamations A. dies seized this discends to M. his Son and Heir who levies a Fine to Uses Fine when it shall bar or not after ten years B. enters the Fine is no bar for no Fine or Warranty shall bar any Estate in Possession Reversion or Remainder which is not devested and put to a Right and the Lords Bargain and Sale doth not devest the Estates of them in Remainder for the Lord doth that which he may do by Law and A. was in by force of the Statute of 27 H. 8. And an Act of Parliament shall do no wrong Bicknal and Tucker's Case Trin. 9 Jac. Rot. 3648. was Whether a Fine with five years will bind the Copy-holder in Remainder There was a Copy-hold granted to three for Lives to have and to hold successively the first accepts a Bargain and Sale of the Freehold Whether a Fine and non-Claim shall bar a Copy-holder in Remainder by the Lord of the Manor and then he levied a Fine with Proclamations and five years pass Whether he in Remainder is barred or not Those whose Estates are turned to Rights either present or future are meant by the Statute to be barred If a Copy-holder for years be put out of Possession and a Fine levied and no entry by him he is barred by the Statute By the Bargain and Sale he in Remainder is not put out of Possession If a man makes a Lease to begin at Easter next and before Easter a Fine is levied and five years pass this Fine will not bar because at the levying of the Fine he could not enter for then his his Right was future If the
Lease had been in possession and the Lessee had never entred he had been barred 1 Brownl 181. This Fine shall not be a bar to the Copy-hold Estate in Remainder for Life for it is not turned to a right the Estate is given by Custom and is to have his beginning after the death of the first Tenant and if the first Tenant commit Forfeiture he in Remainder cannot enter and by Coke notwithstanding the acceptance of the Bargain and Sale the first Copy-hold Estate for Life remains in esse 2 Br. 153. mesme Case Custom that the Lord shall seize Copy-hold after three Proclamations and non-Claim by the Heir shall not bind the Heir that is beyond the Sea 8 Rep. Sir Richard Lechford's Case Statute 37 H. 8. Of Dissolutions 37 H. 8. Of Monasteries extends not to Copy-holds A Copy-holders Estate is not within the Statute of Monasteries and Chanteries to be avoided by any of the Statutes So by Statute 1 Ed. 6. Cap. 14. it is expresly provided That upon the dissolution of Abbies and Monasteries Copy-holds should continue as they did before the Statutes and should fall into the Kings Hands A Copy-holder dissolved by the Statute of Edw. 6. did between the Statute of 37 H. 8. and 1 Edw. 6. grant a Copy-hold Estate in Reversion but the Statute 37 H. 8. extends not to them 3 Bulstr p. 15. Long and Baker Vide 1 Leon. p. 4. mesme Case 31 H. 8. Eccles Leases Of making Leases of Copy-hold Lands belonging to Religious Houses for years after Leases for Lives or Years in being is within that Statute 8 Rep. 7. Heydon's Case 32 H. 8. Of Conditions Entries Assignee Copy-hold is not within the Statute of Entries for Conditions broken Surrendree of Reversion shall not enter for a Condition broken it s not within the Statute of Conditions Hob. p. 177 178. Swinnerton and Miller Copy-hold is not within the Statute of 32 H 8. Entries for Conditions Copy-holder by Licence makes a Lease for 60 Acres rendring Rent and condition of Re-entry Copy-holder Surrenders to J. S. and he demands Rent and enters for Non-payment J. S. is not such an Assignee as the Statute intends and Custom doth not trench to such collateral things such Assignee being in only by Custom is not privy to the Lease made by the first Copy-holder nor in by him but he may plead his Estate immediately under the Lord Yel 222. Brasier's Case But Assignee of a Copy-hold is within the Statute to have Action of Covenant 1 Keb. 356. Arrears of Rent Baker's Case Quaere if of Debt Cro. Car. 21. Platt and Plummer Executors brought Action for Arrears of Rent of Copy-hold of which Manor the Testator died seized Per Cur. Action doth not lye for Arrears of Copy-hold Rents but only of Rents of Free Land and Statute 32 H. 8. extends not to them Yelv. 135. Appleton and Doiley 1 Brownl 102. Tenant in Tayl of a Manor wherein Copy-holds are demisable for Life c. for a certain Rent Copy-holder for Life dyes and the Lord demiseth it for 21 years 38 H. 8. Rents of Leases in Tayl. rendring the ancient Rent c. it s good within the Statute 38 H. 8. for its not any prejudice to the Issue as to the Rent Noy p. 106. The Lord Norris's Case Vide infra hoc capite If the Lord of a Copy-holder for Life demisable by 10 s. Rent leaseth it by Indenture to the Copy-holder and two others for their Lives rendring 10 s. Rent by which it is within the Statute of 32 H. 8. and is not material though the Harriot be lost because it is meerly casual Noy p. 110. Banks and Brown Vide Montjoy's Case 5 Rep. Et supra Copy-hold is within the Statute 32 H. 8. 9. 32 H. 8. Cap. 9. Of maintenance Of Maintenance for the Word is Any Right or Title 4 Rep. 26. a. Vide infra hoc capite Copy-hold is grantable for three Lives 13 El. Cap. 10. Dean and Chapter of London grant this to H. G. for the Lives of J. R. and M. reserving the ancient Rent but no Harriot the Rent was payable at four Quarters and by this Lease its payable half yearly yet this is not void by the Statute 13 El. Cap. 10. For the Occupant shall be punish'd for Waste and the Harriot is not annual nor depends on the Rent and as to the Rent it s the accustomed yearly Rent but in Mountjoy's 5 Rep. yearly was wanting 6 Rep. 37 Dean and Chapter of Worcesters Case Copy-holds are within all the Statutes of Bankrupts by express words vide supra Statutes of Bankrupts 1 El. and Jac. A Copy-hold is not within the Statute of Limitations Debt for the Fine of a Copy-holder is not within the Statute of Limitations 2 Keb. 536. Statute of Limitations Hodsden and Harris Vide. It is laid down for a Rule in Rowden and Malster's Case Cro. Car. 44. When an Act of Parliament altereth the Service Custom Tenure and Interest of the Land Rules when Acts of Parliament extend to Copy-holds or not or other thing in prejudice of the Lord or Tenant there the general words of such an Act shall not extend to Copy-holds Therefore W. 2. Cap. 20. Elegit Statute W. 2. Cap. 20. which gives Elegit extends not to Copy-hold Lands because it would be prejudicial to the Lord and a breach of the Custom that any stranger should have Interest there without admittance and allowance of the Lord. 27 H. 8.10 Stat. of Uses Statute 27 H. 8.10 of Uses toucheth not Copy-holds because the transmutation of Possession by the sole Operation of the Statute without allowance of the Lord would be to the Lords prejudice 31 H. 8. and 32 H. 8. Of Partition The Statute 31 H. 8. Cap. 1. and 32 H. 8. Cap. 2. whereby Joynt-tenants and Tenants in common are compellable to make Prohibition extend not to Copy-holds And the 32 H. 8. Cap. 28. Leases by Tenant in Tayl or by Husband of the Wives Land Statute 32 H. 8. Cap. 28. Which confirms Leases for 21 years made by Tenants in Tayl or by the Husband and Wife of the Wives Land touch not Copy-holds for that Statute warrants only such Leases of Lands which are grantable by Deed such are not Copy-hold Lands though by the Lords Licence they may be granted by Indenture yet in their own nature they are only demisable by Copy So Statute 32 H. 8. Cap. 34. And for the same reason which gives an Entry to the Grantee of a Reversion upon the breach of a condition by the particular Tenant toucheth not Copy-hold In all Statutes made for the good of the Common-wealth and wherein no prejudice accrues to the Lord or Tenants by reason of the alteration of any Interest Service Tenure or Custom of the Manor there the general words of such acts of Parliament do extend to Copy-hold Lands as Statute of Merton Cap. 1.
Merton Cap. 1. Of Damages sur Recovery en Dower which gives Damages to a Feme Covert upon a Recovery in a Writ of Dower where the Baron dyed seized extends to Copy-holds And Stat. W. 2. C. 3. W. 2. Cap. 3. Cui in vita And the three several branches of that Stat. the one which gives a cui in vita upon a discontinuance made by the Husband The second which gives the Receit to the Wife upon her Husbands refusal to defend the Wifes Title Resceit And the third which gives a Quod ei deforceat to particular Tenants extends to Copy-holds Quod ei deforceat And The Statute 32 H. 8. Cap. 9. 32 H. 8. cap. 9. Champerty against Champerty and litigious Titles which gives an Entry in lieu of a Cui in vita extendeth to Copy-holds Cro. Car. 43. Rowden and Malster Vide Plowd f. 371. The Statute W. 2. which gives Elegits Elegit extends not to Copy-holds for that would be a prejudice and the Common Law would break the Custom Savil's Reports Heydon's Case vide supra Copy-hold Lands are liable to the Statutes of Recusants 13 El. cap. 4. Of Recusants and the King shall have the profits of the Lands only but no Estate and such Statute doth not make a Tenant to the Lord and though the King hath the Copy-hold Land yet the Lord shall have the Rent during the possession of the King 1 Leon. p. 98. Saliard and Everat's Case Owen p. 37. mesme Case Copy-hold Lands are not within the words of that Statute but by Anderson 34 H. 8.5 Of Wills the Equity of that Act doth extend to Copy-holds 1 Leon. 83. in Skipwith's Case 31 Eliz. cap. 7. Cottages Copy-hold is not within that Stat. 1 Bulstr 50. Brock's Case 11 H. 7. cap. 10. Joyntresses Copy-hold Lands are assured to the Wife for her Joynture and she aliens them it s no Forfeiture within Statute 11 H. 8. Cap. 10. Copy-hold Land is not within that Statute 2 Siderfin p. 41 73. Harrington and Smith CAP. XXVII Of Emblements who shall have them the Lord or the Copy-holder A Woman who had her Widows Estate of Copy-hold Land and before severance took Husband the Lord shall have the Corn because the Estate of the Woman determined by her own act otherwise if her Estate had ended by Death Divorce Determination of the Will c. Moor n. 512. Oland and Burdwick 5 Rep. 115. mesme Case If a Copy-holder Durante viduitate Lease for one year and the Lessee sows the Land and after the Copy-holder takes an Husband yet the Lessee shall have the Corn for her act shall not prejudice a third person Ibid. Oland's Case If the Husband seized of a Copy-hold in Fee sows the Land and after surrenders to the Use of his Wife who is admitted accordingly and after the Husband dyes before severance it seems the Wife shall have the Corn and not the Executors or Administrators of the Husband Annexed to the Land for that the Husband passed the Emblements with the Land to the Wife as annexed to the Land and by this the Priviledge which the Law gives to him who sows it is taken away by the Surrender and so it is all one as if the Wife had sowed it or purchased the Land sowed by a Stranger 1 Rolls Abr. 727. CAP. XXVIII What shall be said a Disseisin as to Copy-hold Estates or not IF a Copy-holder in Fee dyeth seized and the Lord admit a Stranger to the Land who entreth he is but a Tenant at will and not a Disseisor to the Copy-holder who hath the Land by Discent because he cometh in by the Assent of the Lord 3 Leon. 210. If a Copy-holder without Licence makes a Lease for years the Lessee who enters by colour of that is a Disseisor and a Disseisor cannot maintain an Ejectione Firmae 2. Brownl p. 40. Petty and Evans If a Copy-holder Lease for years by License of the Lord and after enters upon the Lessee and ousts him this is a Disseisin to the Lord of the Frank-Tenement 1 Rolls Abr. 662. by Coke Vide sparsim CAP. XXIX Actions and Suits What Action may be brought by the Lords What Actions brought by Copy-holders or their Executors in respect to their Copy-hold Estates shall be good or not either against their Lords or others What Actions may be brought by the Lords THE Lord upon seizure of Copy-holder may maintain Ejectment till the Heir comes to be admitted as in Harverights Case Latch 511. upon Entry of the Feoffor upon Rent reserved and Entry till satisfaction he may upon such Interest quousque maintain an Ejectment 1 Keb. 2â—7 Lord Salisbury's Case As to the Lords Action for Rent Distress Remedy for Forfeitures Vide supra sparsim per tout in Indice What Actions a Copy-holder may bring against his Lord and what not Trespass upon Ejectment by the Lord. Copy-holder doing and paying the Customs and Services if he be ejected by his Lord he shall have an Action of Trespass against him Co. Lit. 60. b. 61. a. 4 Rep. 22. a. For though he is Tenens ad voluntatem Domini yet it is Secundumconsuetudinem Manerij For cutting Trees He shall have Trespass against his Lord for cutting of Trees or breaking his House in the Case of Stebbing and Gosnel 1 Rolls Abr. 108. The Custom was That every Copy-holder in Fee shall have the Loppings of the Pollingers The Lord cuts down two Oaks and in his Plea to an Action sur Case saith he cut down two Oakes being Pollinger Timber Trees and left the Loppings there for the Plaintiff On Demurrer it was adjudged for the Plaintiff for a Copy-holder of Inheritance hath interest in the Loppings and Boughs as well as the Lord in the Timber And if the Lord shall cut down all the Timber Trees than the Copy-holder shall lose the Profit Cro. El. p. 629. Moor n. 727. mesme Case 1 Rolls Rep. Ford and Hoskin's Case Nay the Action of Trespass by a Copy-holder in Fee against his Lord for cutting down the Trees lyes at Common Law without any special Custom for the Copy-holder hath a special property therein and the Lord a general property the Lord may as well subvert the Houses as cut down the Trees for without them the Copy-holder hath no means to Repair it 2 Brownl 328. Heydon and Smith and in Doyle's Case Mich. 25. and 26 El. it was adjudged where it was a Custom that the Copy-holder might cut Maremium to Repair if the Lord carry it away an Action of Trespass lyes against him by the Tenant in Taylor 's Case Pasch 36. Eliz. A man was Tenant by Copy of Court Roll of Wood and the Soyl was excepted to the Lord and yet the Copy-holder maintained an Action of Trespass against the Lord for cutting his Wood Moor n. 480. If a Stranger cut a Tree Trespass by the Lord and the Copy-holder for cutting down Trees the
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 ' vâ—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 Seneschallâ— 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
in Case of severance and that after the Lord granted over c. as on change of a Corporation in Lutterell's Case 1 Keeble 652. Davy and Watts The Case was The King was seized of a Manor Common appendant where there were divers Copy-holders for Life and was also seized of 8 Acres of Land in another Manor in which the Copy-holders have used time out of mind c. to have Common and after the King grants the Manor to one and the 8 Acres to another and a Copy-holder puts in his Beasts into the 8 Acres And in Trespass brought against him by the Patentee of the 8 Acres he prescribes That the Lord of the Manor and all those whose Estates he hath in the Manor have used time out of mind c. for them selves and their Copy-holders to have Common in the said Acres of Land And he farther pleads That he was Copy-holder for Life by Grant after the said unity of possession in the King and so demanded Judgment si actio Against which the unity of possession was pleaded The Defendant demurs Per Cur. as this Prescription was pleaded the Common was extinct but by special pleading he might have been helped and save his Common for this was Common appendant 2 Brownl 47. Vide James and Read Tirringhams Case 4 Rep. 38. Custom was alledged Sola separalis pastura That all the customary Tenements Habuerunt habuere consuever separalem pasturam c. it was excepted to this Plea That the Copy-holders have not shewed what Estate they have in their customary Tenements And 2dly It s not alledged that they have solam pasturam for their Beasts Levant and Couchant Per Cur. it s not material for be their Estates what they will in Fee or Life or Years Custom hath annexed this sole feeding as a profit apprender to their Estates and this they claim by the Custom of the Manor and not by Prescription As to the other Exception True it is if one claim only Common appurtenant to his Land he ought to say for his Beasts Levant and Couchant for in such case he claims but part of the Herbage and the residue the Lord is to have and therefore if he put in any Beasts that are not Levant and Couchant he doth a wrong to his Lord and the Lord shall have Trespass But here the Commoners claim all the Herbage and so exclude the Lord totally and so it s no mischief to the Lord 2 Sanders 326 327. Hoskins and Robins Estovers If a Copy-holder for Life had used to have Common in the Waste of the Lord or certain Estovers in his Wood and the Lord alien the Waste and the Wood to a Stranger and after grants certain Copy-hold Lands and Houses for Lives such Grantees shall have Common and Estovers in the Lands and Woods which were aliened notwithstanding the Severance But after such severance the Copy-holder shall not plead generally Quod infra manerium praed talis habetur consuetudo for after such severance the Waste or Wood is not parcel of the Manor but he may plead That before and until such time of the severance Talis habebatur a toto tempore c. consuetudo c. and then shew the severance as in Murrel's Case where the Lord severs the Freehold and Inheritance from the Copy-hold Co. 8 Rep. Swain's Case Where a Copy-holder prescribes for Estovers in the Soil of another and he saith That all Copy-holders Ejusdem tenementi usi sunt c. where he ought to have said Ejusdem manerij c. This Prescription was adjudged void 21 Ed. 4.36 b. 63. b. Prescription Pro ligno combustibili is good 2 Brownl 330. Trees A Prescription for a Copy-holder to cut Boughs of Trees is well laid by way of a Custom 2 Brownl 329. The manner of Pleading when a Lease is to be answered which is set forth in the Avowry In Replevin B. avowed for Damage feasant and sets forth That the Lady J. was seized of such a Manor whereof the place where c. and leased the same to the Defendant for years c. The Plaintiff saith That long time before King H. 8. was seized of the said Manor and that the place where c. is parcel of the said Manor demised and demisable by Copy c. and that the said King by such an one his Steward demised and granted the said parcel unto the Ancestor of the Plaintiff whose Heir he is by Copy in Fee and upon this there was a Demurrer because by that bar to the Avowry the Lease set forth in the Avowry is not answered for the Plaintiff in bar to the Avowry ought to have concluded And so he was seized by the Custom until the Avowant pretextu of the said Term for years entred And so it was adjudged 1 Leon. p. 81. Herring and Badcock In Ejectment the Defendant pleads Ejectment That the Lessor of the Plaintiff was Copy-holder in Fee of that Land parcel of the Manor of H. which is in the Queens possession by reason of a Ward and that the Lessor surrendred to the Use of the Defendant in Fee who was admitted and that afterwards the Lessor entred upon him and expelled him and let to the Plaintiff prout in the Declaration and the Defendant re-entred as he lawfully might Lease as at Common Law and plead Lease of Copy-hold Land Custom or Licence must specially be shewed The Plaintiff dedemurs Per Cur. the Plea is naught for there is no confession and avoydance of the Lease let by the Plaintiff for the Action is brought as of a Lease of Land at Common Law and this proves that the Land was Copy-hold Land and a Copy-holder cannot make a Lease for years unless by Custom or by Licence of the Lord which ought specially to be shewed Cro. El. 728. Kensey and Richardson In Ejectione Firmae brought by the Lessee of a Copy-holder Lessee pleading a Licence how it is sufficient that the Count be general without any mention of the Licence and if the Defendant plead not Guilty then the Plaintiff ought to shew the Licence in Evidence but if the Defendant plead specially then the Plaintiff ought to plead the Licence certainly in his Replication and the time and place when it was made And if the Plaintiff replies That the Copy-holder by Licence first then had of the Lord did demise and did not shew what Estate the Lord had nor the place and time when it was made it s not good Per tot Cur. For the Licence is traversable for if the Copy-holder without Licence make a Lease for years the Lessee which enters by colour of that is a disseisor and a disseisor cannot maintain an Ejectione Firmae and the Defendant cannot plead That the Plaintiff by Licence did not demise for this is a negative pregnant also it ought to appear what Estate the Lord had for he cannot Lease for a longer time than he had in the
Seigniory as suppose he is only for Life and he licenseth for 21 years and dies it s determined 2 Brownl 40. Petty and Evans In Ejectment The Defendant pleaded a Surrender of a Copy-hold by the Hand of F. then Steward of the Manor Issue was joyned absque hoc that he was Steward Per tot Cur. it s no Issue Pleading a Surrender how for the Traverse ought to be general that he did not surrender for if he were not Steward the Surrender is void So of a Surrender pleaded into the Hands of the Tenants of the Manor Cro. El. p. 260. Wood and Butts Pleads Prescription to be discharged of Tythes Copy-holders of Inheritance who held of a Bishop as of his Manor may prescribe That the Bishop and his Predecessors seized of the said Manor for themselves their Tenants for Lives Years and Tenants by Copy of Court Roll of the said Manor time out of memory c. have been discharged from payment of Tythes for their Lands parcel of the said Manor for this is a good Prescription for their Tenements are parcel of the Demesns of the Manor and this may commence upon a real composition of all the Manor 1 Rolls Abr. 652. The Case was thus A Parson sues a Copy-holder in the Spiritual Court for Tythes arising upon the Copy-hold Land he brought his Prohibition and suggests that the Bishop of Winchester Lord of the Manor whereof his Copy-hold is parcel and his Predecessors c. time out of memory c. for them their Tenants and Farmers have been discharged of Tythes arising upon the Manor and shews that he had been Copy-holder of the said Manor time out of memory c. and prescribes in his Lord the Bishop of Winchester's Name the Spiritual Court would not allow this Plea but Per Cur. a Prohibition was granted although here be a Prescription upon a Prescription Prescription upon a Prescription one in the Copy-holder to make his Estate good the other in the Bishop to make his Discharge good yet it was allowed for all Copy-holds are derived out of the Manor and it shall be intended That this Prescription had its commencement at such time when all was in the Lords Hands and the one Prescription is not contrariant to the other although both were from time whereof c. Prescription in the Lord ought of necessity to precede the Prescription in the Estate of the Copy-hold and the discharge of Tythes in the Lord which may well be in this case because he is a Spiritual person trenches to the benefit of the Tenant who is a Copy-holder for by this means it may be presumed that the Lord had greater Fines and Rents Yelv. 2. Croucher and Fryar which case is more largely Reported by Cro. El. 784. Otherwise a Copy-holder which is a Temporal person cannot prescribe in non decimando Prohibition granted out of B. C. against the Ordinary of G. and one Branch the surmise was That the Land out of which the Tythes were demanded is Copy-hold parcel of a Manor of which a Prior was seized in Fee and was also Parson imparsonee Union by which Union the Tythes were extinct Per Cur. the surmise is not good and a Consultation was awarded it was no good Prescription to discharge the Tythes Moor Rep. n. 356. Branches Case A Prohibition prayed upon a surmise that the Dean and Chapter of C. seized of the Manor and Rectory of M. and one G. a customary Tenant prescribes That every Tenant of his Tenement hath used to pay 3 s. 4 d. to the Lord who is also a Parson in discharge of his Rent and a fourth part of the Tythe of B. Per Cur. it s no good Prescription for the Parson cannot libel for the Rent nor the Lord for the Tythe Uncertain and non constat what each should have and the Parson must have a satisfaction or else there can be no discharge 1 Keb. 886 906. Wilkinson and Richardson Traverses Traversing the day of the Grant In Ejectment The Defendant entitles himself by Copy granted 44 Eliz. The Plaintiff by Replication intitles himself by Grant 1 June 43 Eliz. The Defendant maintains his bar and traverseth absque hoc that the Queen 1 June 43 regni sui granted the Land by Copy modo forma prout c. This Replication is not good for the day and year of granting the Copy is not material but only whether it were granted before the Copy made to the Defendant therefore he ought to have traversed absque hoc That the Queen granted modo forma prout c. and this is matter of substance and not aided the traversing of the day where it ought not is matter of substance for thereby he makes it parcel of the Issue which ought not to be Cro. Jac. 202. Lane and Alexander 1 Brownl 140. mesme Case In Ejectment The Defendant pleads the Land is Copy-hold parcel of the Manor of S. whereof the King was and is seised who by his Steward granted the same such a day to him in Fee Habend c. by vertue whereof he was admitted entred and was seized and so justifies The Plaintiff replies That long before the King had any thing in the Manor Queen Elizabeth was seized in Fee in Jure Coronae who by her Steward at such a Court granted the Land in question by Copy to him in Fee Habend c. secundum consuet c. who was admitted and entred Confessing and avoyding Per Cur. the Replication is good and the Plaintiff need not Traverse the Grant alledged in the Bar by the Defendant for the Plaintiff hath confessed and avoided the Defendants Title by a former Copy granted by Queen Elizabeth and so need not traverse and as no man can have a Lease for years without assignment no more can a man have a Copy without a Grant made in Court Cro. Jac. p. 299. Rice and Harrison 1 Brownl p. 147. mesme Case The Plaintiffs Replication is good without any Traverse for how can the Defendant have this when as the Plaintiff had it before as by his Replication appears for that his Lease being first in time avoids the Defendants Lease being the latter and therefore the Defendant in this case ought to have rejoyned and so to have traversed the first Lease but by his Demurrer to the Replication he hath confessed the Lease under which the Plaintiff claims mesme Case 2 Bulstrode p. 1. 6 Rep. Helliar's Case A man pleads a descent of a Copy-hold in Fee the Defendant to take away the descent pleaded That the Ancestor did Surrender to the Use of another Traversing the dying seized absque hoc That the Copy-holder died seized Per Cur. the Traverse is ill because that he traversed that which needed not to be traversed for being Copy-hold and having pleaded a Surrender of it Difference between that and at Common Law the Party cannot have it again if not by Surrender But if a man plead
a descent of Inheritance at Common Law there the Defendant may plead a Feoffment made by the Ancestor absque hoc that he died seized because he may have an Estate by disseisin after the Feoffment Traverse of the descent and not of the dying seized is not good March p. 21. Anonymus Copy-hold Land was granted by the Lord of a Manor 10 May 3 Car. to the Wife of Tho. Kett and in the Replication the Defendant justifies as Bayliff to Tho. Kett the Plaintiff confesseth the Land is Copy-hold Land but that the Lord granted it 1 Jac. to N. S. in Fee who had two Daughters the Wife of the Plaintiff and the Wife of Tho. Kett and died seized and that the Lands descended to them upon which it was demurred By Berkley the Grant of the whole ought to be traversed Coparceners or confessed and avoided for the first Grant shews that the Defendant was in of all and the descent to the Wife is but for a moity Dyer 171. pl. 8. Per Cur. upon the whole matter disclosed Quaere if a Coparcener cannot distrain upon the Land of another Matter of Form damage fesant and the matter of form in the pleading ought not to be regarded by the Judges upon Statute 23 El. Cap. 5. Judgment was pro Quer. Hutton said The descent which was pleaded makes the second Grant void but by Richardson Though it be avoided yet it is not confessed Hetly p. 114. Port and Yates In Replevin the Defendant avows for damage fesant by reason of a Copy granted to him of the place where c. by the Lord of the Manor Cooper Bishop of Winchester The Plaintiff saith That before Cooper Horn was Bishop by whose death the Temporalties came into the Queens Hands and this Copy-hold during the time that the Temporalties were in the Queens Hands Escheated and the Queen granted it to the Plaintiff in Fee by force whereof he put in his Beasts If there is not confessing and avoiding there must be a Traverse and traverseth the Grant by Cooper Per. Cur. this Traverse is good and ought to be for there is not any confessing and avoiding because he doth not confess the Seisin and grant by Copy but if he had confessed That the Bishop had entred and granted it by Copy Where needs no Travers then there needed not any Traverse So where one justifies by Lease from J. S. the Plaintiff saith That J. S. enfeoffed himself it is not good without a Traverse Cro. El. p. 754. Covert's Case In Ejectment Ancient Demesn pleaded Replication That they are Copy-hold and Traverse The Defendant pleaded that the Lands were ancient Demesn and pleadable by a Writ of Right Close c. The Plaintiff shews That they were Copy-hold Lands and parcel of the Manor and entitles himself by Lease under the Copy-holder and traverseth That they were impleadable by a Writ of Right Close the Traverse is well enough taken Cro. Jac. 559. Pimmock and Helder The Avowant hath Election to Traverse any part of the Plea which goes to the end of the Action or justifies the Action Traverse the consequence In Ejectment the Defendant pleaded That the Lands were ancient Demesn and pleadable by a Writ of Right Close c. the Plaintiff shews they were Copy-hold Lands parcel of the Manor and intitles himself by Lease under the Copy-holder and traverseth that they are impleadable by a Writ of Right Close Demurrer because this Traverse that they were impleadable is but the consequence of ancient Demesn and therefore not traversable but Per Curiam that the Traverse is well enough taken Where a particular Custom is confessed in the Rejoynder he ought to Traverse the general Custom If the Plaintiff in his Rejoynder confesseth a particular Custom he ought to Traverse the general Custom alledged by the Defendant as in Replication the Defendant alledgeth a general Custom Quod quaelibet femina cooperta viro joyning with her Husband in a Surrender of Copy-hold Lands and being privately examined by the Steward that this by the Custom is a good Surrender the Plaintiff replies That there is a Custom in the Manor quod quaelibet c. who is of full Age may Surrender but the Wife who surrendred here was of full Age and doth not traverse the other Custom And Per Curiam it was ill Lit. Rep. 174. Anonymus Presidents and Forms of Pleading as to Copy-hold Estates The Form of Pleading that a Messuage is parcel of a Manor dimissibil dimiss per Copiam 1 Sanders 146. Wade and Batch That the Lands are Copy-hold Lands c. 2 Sanders 321. Pleading of a Surrender made in the Court of the Lord of the Manor to the Use of J. W. in Fee and of the Grant of the Lord to the said J. W. accordingly 1 Sanders 146. Pleading of the Surrender of a Remainder of a Copy-hold Estate to one for Life to another for Life to another in Fee and admission of them accordingly 1 Sanders 147. Pleading the Admittance of two Tenants in the Remainder for Life the Remainder in Fee 1 Sanders 147. Wade and Batch The Form of Pleading Copy-hold in Fee-simple in Tail for term of Life or Years In Fee-simple Hern p. 80. Co. Entr. 10. 647. Estate 3 Br. 463. Hern 227.607 In feod simplici Tail Life or Years Ra. Ent. 627. Co. Ent. 206. U. B. 128 157. Co. Ent. 657 123. Hern 679. Ad terminum vite vel vitarum Hern 653. Ad terminum 2 vitarum successive Hern 72. Ad terminum 1 2 vel 3 vitarum successive Hern 83 123. Simile in possessione Hern 711. Ad terminum vite vel vitarum tam in possessione quam in Reversione Co. Ent. 373 672. Ad terminum 1 vel 2 vitarum in possessione 1 vite in Reversione Hern 724. Ad Terminum 1 vite in possessione 1 vel 2 vitarum in Reversione Hern 254. Ad terminum 1 2 vel 3 vitarum in possessione vel 2 vitarum in reversione unius vite in possessione Coke Ent. p. 184 3 Br. 745. Pleading Surrender Surrender in Cur ad usum in feod Ra. Entr. 627. Co. Entr. 206. 3 Br. 465. Extra Curiam in manus 2 Tenentur ad usum in feod Co. Entr. 575 645. Usi Extra Curiam ad usum W. pur vie Remainder al Baron Feme Heires de Feme Co. Entr. 207. In manus Dom Co. Entr. 575. Per Tenant pur vie de moiety al use des Fitz Hern 255. Per 2 Tenants pur vie al intent de regrant Hern 656. Per Feme Covert secretur examinatur Co. Entr. 576. 3 Br. 465. Per Attorn secundum consuetudinem Manerij Co. Entr. 657. Per literam Attoruatur Co. Entr. 576. Presentment per l' homage de surrender extra Curiam Co. Entr. 206. Simile per tenentur jacen in extremis Co. Ent. 206. Admissio secundum sursum redditionem Co. Entr. 207 575 bis 577 645 657. Admissio heredis super
Copy-holders Fines Forfeitures Surrenders Admittances Trusts c. and what is proper to be brought and examined in that Court Alteration of a Custom by consent of Lord and Tenants allowed in Chancery Custom altered and decreed accordingly Dyer contra Dyer 10 July 44 El. If any particular Copy-holders complain in Chancery of the grievousness of a Fine Outragious Fines as to particular Copy-holders relieved but not upon a Petition by all the Copy-holders where the Fine is arbitrable at the will of the Lord if such Fine be outragious my Lord will mitigate it and lessen it according to the time But if the whole company of Copy-holders do exhibit a Bill praying a mitigation of their unreasonable Fines where they are arbitrable at the will of the Lord in this Case my Lord will reject the Bill for said he I can make no Act of Parliament for them 24 Nov. 44 Eliz. The Defendant being Lord of a Manor had 150 l. as a Fine upon the Plaintiffs admission to the Lands in question The Court of Chancery directed to an Issue whether the 150 l. were a reasonable Fine or not and the Defendant got a Verdict and the Damages were given by the Jury being to the Value This Court declared Reasonableness of a Fine how to be determined and properly recovered That the Fine was proper to be recovered at Law and that the reasonableness or unreasonableness of a Fine to be paid by a Copy-holder is a question of Law and not to be determined by a Jury Hill contra Jacobs 3 Jac. 2. f. 2. One improved years value decreed to be a moderate Fine In the case of Popham and Lancastar 12 Car. 1. The Court seeing there hath been a variation of the Fines and not certain decreed That one improved years value is a moderate Fine between Lord and Tenant so was Middleton and Jackson's Case 5 Car. 1. Forfeitures wilful not relieved In the Case of Ackland Pope and my Lady Wentworth the Lord Chancellor said he would not relieve any Copy-holder who through wilful Forfeiture hath given cause of seizure to the Lord for he said The Lord had as good a right to a seizure for a Forfeiture as a Copy-holder to his Copy-hold Estate but a wilful Forfeiture he would not relieve but for negligence he might Copyholder conceals the Land of the Lord. If a Copy-holder conceal the Land of the Copy-hold to the disherison of the Lord and say to the Lord Lay out of my Land and I will pay you your Rent for it My Lord Chancellor Elsemere said He is worthy to return to his ancient villainous Tenure again Commons for Copy-holders Commons for Copy-holders and Terminors to be relieved in Chancery Tothil 108. Colcot and Lee. A Copy-holder can have no assise of Common against his Lord Copy-holder can have no Assise against his Lord but relievable in Equity Copy-holder to sue at Law sans forfeiture but is to be relieved in Equity The Tenants of Petsworth and the Earl of Northumberlands Case Tothil 108. The Court will compel the Lord to admit a Tenant Copy-holder to sue at Law without any forfeiture of his Copy-hold Tothil 65. Tenant by Copy shall not have Assise against his Lord because he hath a Frank-tenement 4 Rep. 21. but he shall be relieved in Equity Tothil p. 108. A Suit was to compel a Lord to Grant a Licence to let a Copy-hold Licence Forfeiture to be examined before a Licence be decreed but because the Defendant said in his Answer That the Copy-hold was forfeited the Court would not enforce him to grant a Licence till the forfeiture was examined Tothil 107 108. A Court of Equity shall compel a Lord to admit a Copy-holder Admittances for before Admittance he cannot have an Action upon Surrender and he hath no remedy at Common Law Hetly Rep. p. 2. A Bill in Chancery to admit a Copy-holder against Lord and Steward Plaintiff admitted to try a Title upon a Mortgage and this was only to try a Title to enable a Mortgagee to try a Custom That if mony be paid after the day so it be before Entry of the Surrender made by Mortgagee that its a sufficient Redemptition and also where the Wife Inheretrix dies sans Issue the Husband shall have the Fee at Taunton Dean Per Cur. the Plaintiff shall be admitted though the Steward need not have been made one of the Defendants 2 Keb. 357. Towel versus Cornish * Chancery will design the Bounds of a Copy-hold but not whether parcel or not parcel If a Copy-holder removes or defaceth the bounds of a Copy-hold it is proper for such a Court to design them but parcel or not parcel of a Copy-hold belongs to the Common Law to try Hetly p. 2. Blackhal and Thursby Possession after 43 years Lyford contra Coward 35 Car. 2. Richard Lyford Senior the Plaintiffs Father being seized in Fee of Freehold and Copy-hold Lands and having had Issue Richard Thomas and John now Plaintiff by Will gave the Plaintiff all his Copy-hold Lands and to his Heirs Males and for default of such Issue to his Heirs general and made a Surrender to the Use of his Will That the Surrender was presented and the Plaintiff admited Tenant and hath ever since been of the Homage and enjoyed the Copy-hold Lands That Richard the Son died 1637. leaving only one Daughter the Defendant Mary That the Court Rolls are lost and the Defendant insists That he in right of his Wife the Defendant Mary as Heir at Law to the said Richard Lyford Senior is entitled to the Premises there being no such Surrender or Admittance to be found and that no such Will was made or any thing that will make out the Defendants Title The Court declared they would see Presidents but then declared That after 43 years possession they thought it hard that the Plaintiff should be evicted and Ordered That the Defendant should admit of a Surrender and Admittance upon payment of Costs and bring an Ejectment and the Plaintiff not to insist on his possession to hinder the Tryal The Court Decreed to the Plaintiff and his Heirs to enjoy the Land according to the said Will and Custom of the Manor Relief as to Surrenders Purchases Agreements Trusts Rolls lost and Rents Arrear It is Decreed in the Case of Greenwood cont Hare 18 Car. 2. That where one was a Copy-holder for the Lives of himself and his two Sons and he paid the Fine Defendant decreed to surrender according to an Agreement and afterwards covenanted and agreed with the Plaintiffs Father to Surrender his Title and Interest in the Premisses to the Plaintiffs Father and his Heirs Copy-holder dies before any Surrender The Plaintiffs Father dyes he Exhibits his Bill to have the Premisses surrendred according to the Agreement the Purchase-mony having been paid by the Plaintiffs Father The Court considering That by the Custom the Defendants Father could have
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
corpore ejusdem K. Legitime procreatur pro defectu talis exitus remanere inde prefatur H. J. heredibus de corpore suo Legitime procreatur pro defectu talis exitus remanere inde prefatur A. Vxori pdictur H. J. heredibus de corpore ejusdem A. Legitime procreatur pro defectu talis exitus remanere inde pfatur V. S. heredibus suis imperpetuum ad voluntatem Domini secundum consuetudinem Manerii pdictur ê‘ redditur servitia inde prius debitur de jure consuetur Et pdictur D. K. Vx. ejus dant Domino de fine pro tali statu suo inde habend centum solid admissi sunt inde tenentes modo forma predictur c predictur Dominus concessit se satisfactur de predicto fine inde habend ê“ Messuagio Cottagiis ceteris premissis predictur cum pertin de predictur D. K. Vxore ejus cum predictur Messuagiu Cottagia cetera premissa pdictur cum pertin post mortem predictur A. Vxoris predictur J. H. ad manus sua devenerint Et postea ad hanc curiam venit predictur F. J. in propria ê‘sona sua hic in plena curia sursum reddidit in manus Domini tota jus titulu clameu interesse sua in omnibus predic Messuagio Cottagiis ceteris premissis cum pertin ad usus predictur ulteris remisit relaxavit omnino ê“ se heredibus suis quietur clamavit prefatur H. J. A. Vxori ejus totum jus titulum clameum interesse demaund sua que ipse Tâ—â— unquam habuit in predictur Messuagio Cottagiis ceteris premissis predictur cum ê‘tin habend tenend omnia singula pdictur Messuagium Cottagia cetera premissa pdictur cum ê‘tin pfatur H. J. Vxori ejus ê“ termino vite pdictur A. post decessum ejusdem A. remanere omniu pdictur terraru tenementor cum ê‘tin pfatur D. T. K. Vxori ejus heredibus de corpore pdictur D. Legitime procreatur ê“ defectu talis exitus remanere inde pfatur K. Vxori pdictur D. heredebus de corpore ejusdem K. Legitime procreatur ê“ defectu talis exitus remanere inde pfatur H. J. heredibus de corpore pdictur H. J. Legitime procreatur pro defectu talis exitus remanere inde pfatur A. Vxor ê‘dictur H. J. heredibus de corpore ejusdem A. Legitime procreatur ê“ defectu talis exitus remanere inde pdfatur V. S. heredibus suis imperpetuu ad voluntatem Domini secundu consuetud manerii pdictur c. After abatement and intrusion the Lord seizeth the Lands and grants them to the Abator for term of Life Remainder to the next Heir of the Disseisee and in Tayl Remainder in Fee Compertu est ê‘ homagiu ibid quod quidam O. B. Miles defunctur tenuit de Domino hujus Manerii die quo obiit sibi heredibus suis ad voluntatem Domini secundum consuetudinem Manerii pdictur unum MessuagÌ„ c. cum ê‘tin in A. pdictur infra Maner pdictur quod pdictur O. obiit de tali statu suo inde seisitur ê‘ sex annos â—am ultimo elapsos amplius quod quida H. R. in jure Vxoris sue quonda uxoris L. B. Arm filii pdictur O. B. immediate post decessu pdictur O. B. in pdictur MessuagÌ„ c. cetera premissa pdicta cum ê‘tin abatavit intravit intrusit super possession DnÌ„i Manerii pdictur in exheredetation dicti Dom Manerii pdictur successor suor contra consuetud Manerii sui pdictur a tempore cujus contrarii meomria hominu non existit in eod Manerio usitatur approbatur exitus ê“ficua inde a tempore mortis pdictur O. B. ad suu propriu usu hucusque habuit percepit nor capiend pdictur MessuagÌ„ c. cetera pmissa pdictur cum ê‘tin extra manus Dom Manerii predictur nec fecit inde DnÌ„o fine ê“ eisdem secundum consuetud Manerii sui pdictur sic pdictur H. R. tenuit occupavit pdictur MessuagÌ„ per pdictur sex annos ultur elapsos amplius contra consuetud Manerii pdictur Ideo pceptu est ballivo Manerii pdictur seisire in manus Domini pdictur MessuagÌ„ c. cetera premissa pdictur cum ê‘tin quousque c. Et Dominus modo habens inde seisinam ad humilem petitionem pdictur H. R. ex gratia sua speciali ad hanc curiam concessit extra manus suas pdictur MessuagÌ„ c. pfatur R. H. A. Vxori ejus ad terminum vite ipsius A. liberata est eis seisina ê‘ virgam Habend tenend pdictur MessuagÌ„ c. pfatur R. A. ad terminum vite ipsius A. ad voluntatem Domini secundum consuetud Manerii pdictur post decessum ipsius A. remanere inde quibusdam D. T. K. Vxori ejus consanguin proxime heredibus pdictur O. B. videlicet filie pdictur L. B. filij O. B. heredibus de corpore pdictur D. T. Legitime pdictur procreatur pro defectu talis exitus remanere inde pfatur K. c. with Remainder over in Fee to V. S. tenend de Domino per virgam ad voluntatem Domini secundum consuetudinem Manerii pdictur per redditur servitia inde prius debitur de jure consuetur Et tam pdictur H. R. A. Vxor ejus quam pdictur D. T. K. Vxor ejus dant Domino de fine ê“ tali ingressu suo inde habend de in premissis 5 libras fecer Dom fidelitatem admissi sunt inde tenentes modo forma pdictis c. Surrender out of Court to several Uses upon a Marriage Settlement Compertum est per Homagium ibid quod A. B. qui tenuit ut supra unu MessuagÌ„ sive Tenementum vocatur c. in A. infra Manerium pdictur citra ultur Curia extra Curia sursu reddidit in manus DnÌ„i per manus H. K. J. W. duor custum tenen Manerii pdictur secund consuetud Manerij illius pdictur Messuagiu seu Tenementu cetera premissa pdictur cum ê‘tin ad opus usu pdictur A. B. Hered Assign suor usque ad solempnization cujusda intensi marritagÌ„ permissione Divina cito habitur solempnizatur inter quenda C. D. filium heredem apparen pdictur A. B. ex una parte quandam A. D. de A. pdictur Spinster ex altera parte ab immediate post solempnization ejusd MaritagÌ„ tunc ad opus usu pdictur A. B. pro durante termino vite sue naturalis ab immediate post ejus decessum tunc ad opus usum S. Vxoris ejus pro durante termino vite sue naturalis ab immediate post decessus Anglice deceases ipsorum A. B. S. Vxoris ejus decessum eor superviventis tunc
Admittance it being entred thus Compertum est per homagium c. and not as its usual dat Domino de fine fecit fidelitatem admissus est inde tenens at the end of Popham p. 127 128. Rawlinson and Green Of Admittances upon Surrender The nature of it will be Explained by two or three Rules I. The surrender of a Copy-hold to J. S. hath no effect till J. S. be admitted Tenant Till admission the Tenant hath no Estate therefore if J. S. before he is admitted surrenders to J. B. who is admitted this avails nothing to J. B. for J. S. himself had nothing and so can pass nothing and the Admittance of his Grantee shall not be taken by implication as Admittance to himself for the Admittance ought to be of a Tenant certainly known to the Steward and entred in a Roll by it self and in such case the Right and Possession remains still in him who surrendered and descends to his Heir he to whom the Copy-hold is surrendred comes in as a Purchaser and his Copy is his Evidence by the Custom and till he is admitted he can be no customary Tenant and therefore can transfer no right to another Yelverton 145. Wilson and Weddel 1 Brownlow 143. Aliter in Case of Descent Vide infra The Admittance of a Copy-holder is compared to the Induction to a Benefice which gives Possession At the end of Popham p. 127 121. Rawlinson and Green That Case was Copy-holder surrendred his Copy-hold Estate to the Use of another which was presented at next Court and found by the Homage and he to whose Use the Surrender was made was there in Court accepted by the Steward and a Copy by him granted unto him afterwards he to whose Use this Surrender was made surrenders the same again to the Use of another which was presented and a Copy granted to him and he accepted as a Copy-hold Tenant but no Admittance Entred as Cepit de Dom. admissus est inde tenens c. Per Cur. He to whom the first Surrender was made had no Estate in him before Admittance and whether and how far he might transfer this Interest Curia dubitav and whether what was done to the second Surrendree is not an assent by the Lord to the first Surrenderer It was granted That if the Steward accepted a Fine as of a Copy-holder it amounted to an Admittance 3 Bulstr 237. mesme Case II. Surrenders of Copy-holds are not to be likened to Surrenders at Common Law for if a Copy-holder in Fee surrenders to the Use of another for Life nothing more passeth out of him than shall serve the Estate limited to the Use and he which made the Surrender shall not pay any Fine for re-Admittance to the Reversion for this continues always in him 9 Rep. 107. Margaret Podgers Case III. The Lord hath a bare customary power to admit secundum formam effectum sursum reddit Therefore if there be any variance between the Admittance and Surrender either in the Person or the Estate or in the Tenure its void c. The Lord doth only transfer an Estate according to the Surrender Where the Lords Admittance of a Copy-holder in other manner than agrees to the Surrender shall be good and how it shall be construed and enure Admittances as to Limitations alter not the Estate for he is in by force of the Surrender If J. surrender to the Use of J. S. and the Lord admits J. N. this Admittance is wholly void and yet the Lord may afterwards admit J. S. according to his Authority but had he admitted J. S. and J. N. joyntly then the Admittance had been void for the one and good for the other Co. Cop. 127. If a man surrender to the Use of J. S. and J. D. for their Lives the Remainder over to another and J. S. and J. D. are admitted in Fee yet this doth not alter their Estate but they shall be seised according to the Surrender 1 Rolls Rep. 317. Lane and Pannel Surrender is upon Condition the Presentment is absolute and the Admittance is absolute the Presentment was void But the Surrenderors Release to Cesty que use shall make his Estate good Vide supra 4 Rep. Keit and Quinton If the Lord after Surrender grants to Cesty que use and to Stranger all shall enure to Cesty que use or if he admit the Cesty que use upon a Condition the Condition is void for after Admittance he is in by him that made the Surrender So if a Copy-holder surrender to the use of another pur vie and the Lord admit him to hold to him and his Heirs yet Cesty que use had but an Estate for Life for he is in after Admittance by force of the Surrender 4 Rep. Westwick and Wier Note A Copy-hold Estate cannot be surrendred to another by an Attorny without Deed but one may be admitted to a Copy-hold Estate by Attorny without Deed Stiles Pract. Reg. 74. By whom Admittance upon Surrender may be made and shall bind By those that have defeasible Titles Admittances made by Disseisors Abators Intruders Tenant at sufferance or others who have defeizable Titles are good against them who have Right because these are lawful Acts and they were compellable to do the same Co. Lit. 58. b. If Disseisor of a Manor accept a Surrender of a Copy-hold of Inheritance to the Use of another and his Heirs and he admits Cesty que use accordingly this is good and shall bind the Disseisee p. 40 Eliz. B. R. Martin and Rieve 4 Rep. 24. If A. Copy-holder for Life surrender to the Disseisor of a Manor to the Use of another for the Life of A. and the Disseisor admits him accordingly this shall bind the Disseisee ibid. Martin's Case But without Admittance it shall not bind Surrender by Dom. pro tempore and his Estate determines before Admittance If the Lord pro tempore of a Copy-hold Manor be Lessee for Life or for Years Guardian or any who had particular Interest or Tenant at will of a Manor accept a Surrender and after before Admittance the Lessee for Life dyes or the Years Interest or Custody or the Will is determined although the next Lord comes in paramount the Lease for Life or for years the Custody or the particular Interest or Tenancy at Will yet he shall be compelled to make Admittance according to the Surrender 17 Jac. Lord Arundel's Case Co. Lit. 59. b. Trin. 1 Jac. Rot. 854. Shopland and Ridler By the Deputies Servant admitting no Judicial Act. The Deputy of a Steward commands H. his Servant to keep Court and grant Land and Admit Per Cur. it is good for the taking a Surrender granting Lands by Copy admitting a Copy-holder is not any judicial Act for there need not be any Suitors there who are Judges 1 Leon. 288. Lord Dacres's Case What amounts to an Admittance If a Copy-holder in Fee surrender to the Use of another