Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	daughter_n	elder_a	marry_v	10,918	5	9.6530	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

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

the Son to the Plow So the Custom that the Wife shall have the whole for her free Bench is against the Maxim of Common Law for Dower These Customs might have a reasonable beginning where they are not prejudicial to the Common-wealth nor to the present Interest of any particular person yet a Custom may be prejudicial to the Interest of a particular person and reasonable also where it is for the benefit of the Common-wealth in general as to make Bulwarks upon another mans Land in time of War c. But Custom which is contrary to the publick Good or injurious to a Multitude and beneficial only to some particular Person such Custom is repugnant to the Law of Reason and void ab initio and no Prescription can make it good therefore the Custom of a Manor was That no Commoner should put in his Beasts till the Lord had put in his and it was adjudged void 2 H. 4.24 For if the Lord would never put in his Beast the Commoners should lose their Common As to Customs being reasonable or unreasonable vide several more instances in the Argument of Rolls and Mason's Case 2 Brownl 86 88. Customs may be reasonable ratione loci Custom is Several particular Customs in several places where Copy-holder had Issue only Daughters the eldest shall have this for Life and after her death it shall go to the next Heir Male of the Father to him and his Heirs and if no such Heir then it shall Escheat to the Lord. Copy-holder dyes Borderers on Scotland his Wife hath it durante viduitate leaving two Daughters and during this time the eldest dyes The Question was if the second Daughter or the Lord by Escheat had the better Title Per Cur. 1. The Custom is good and the Estate which the Daughter had is an excrescent Estate and not properly a descent 2. She that was eldest at the time of the death of the Mother shall have it and not only Primogenita filia Siderfin p. 267. Newton and Shafto This Custom was good ratione loci for such Manor is bordering on Scotland where were frequent Invasions And Feme sole Merchant is good ratione loci Feme Sole Merchant London The Custom of the Isle of Man That one shall be hanged for stealing a Capon Isle Man but not for stealing an Ox is good In the Manor of Bemister in Dorset Bemister is this Custom That a Copy-holder ought to nominate his Successor otherwise the Land shall Escheat and it has been allowed to be a good Custom So the Manor of Taunton Taunton Dean That the Wife of the Copy-holder shall have the Inheritance of her Husband Siderfin p. 267. id Case The Custom of Millan in Norfolk is Millan in Norfolk If any Copy-holder will sell his Land and agree upon the Price at the next Court the next of his Blood and if he refuse any other of his Blood may have the Land And such like Custom there is at Ham in Middlesex Ham in Middlesex The next Clivener which is he that dwelleth next to him shall have the refusal giving as much as another will and he which inhabits on the East the first and then the South c. 2 Brownl 177. As for the other Rules of the validities of Customs as that they ought to be on good Considerations and beneficial to the Prescriber as Calthrop and Cokes Copyholder treat of they may be referred to the forgoing Rules Now you see there are three supporters of a Copy-hold Custom 1. Time and that must be out of the memory of Man so that Copy-hold cannot begin at this day 2. That the Tenements be parcel of the Manor or within the Manor 3. That it hath been demised and demisible by Copy of Court Roll Demised and demisible how understood for it need not be demised time out of mind by Copy of Court Roll but if it be demisible it is sufficient For Example If a Copy-hold Tenement Escheat to the Lord and the Lord keeps it in his hands many years during this time it is not demised but demisible for the Lord hath power to demise it again Coke Lit. 58. b. Customs of Manors are Disabling Enabling Disabling is That the Tenant by a particular Custom shall not be allowed to do that which he might by the general Custom of Manors As a man may sell Land to whom he will by the general Custom of Manors yet in some Manors by special Custom he must make an offer to the next of Blood Vide supra Customs ratione loci Enabling is where the Tenant by a particular Custom shall be enabled to do that from which he is restrained by the general Custom of Manors By the general Custom of Manors the granting of Copy-hold Land for more than one year without Licence is a Forfeiture yet in some Manors they may do it and it shall not be a Forfeiture Coke Copy-hold 79. Sect. 33. You will find Prescription mentioned in the ensuing Cases therefore it will be of good use a little to open the nature of Custom and Prescription and to shew how and wherein they agree and wherein they differ and also the difference as to Pleadings Custom Prescription and Usage are of great Affinity yet they differ thus Custom is where by continuance of time a Right is obtained concerning divers persons in Common Prescription is where by continuance of time one particular person obtaineth Right against another either a Person or Body Politick Usage is by continuance of time and an efficient cause of both Limitation is where a Right may be obtained by reason of Non-claim by the space of a certain number of years Calthrops Reading 1. Prescription is made in the Person and so the Pleading is That he and all his Ancestors c. Or he and all those whose Estate he hath time out of mind used to have Common of Pasture in such a place c. being the Land of some other c. as pertaining to the said Manor Custom is a Copy-holder of the Manor of D. doth plead That within the same Manor there is and hath been such a Custom timeout of mind used that all the Copy-holders of the said Manor have and used to have Common c. Coke Lit. 113. b. So Custom lyes upon the Land As infra manerium talis habetur consuetudo c. 8 Rep. Swain's Case And such Custom binds the Land as Gavel-kind Borough English c. Prescription ought to have a Lawful beginning not so of Custom So is Coke 6 Rep. Gateward's Case Prescription is alledged in the Person and a Custom ought always to be alledged upon the Land for every Prescription by common intendment ought to have a lawful beginning but it is otherwise of a Custom for this ought to be reasonable and Ex certa rationabili causa usitata but it need not to have an intendment of a lawful commencement as Custom to have Land devisable

after the death of the Lord he should pay a Fine it had been good This was resolved by the Judges in Serjeants-Inn in a Case of one Armstrong referred out of Chancery Lord cannot grant a Copy-hold in Reversion The Lord of a Manor cannot grant a Copy-hold in Reversion without a special Custom March Rep. 8. Whether the Lord of a Manor might grant Copies in the remainder only with the assent of the Tenants was a question if it was a good Custom but not resolved 3 Leon. 226. The Copy-holder is surdus mutus the Lord shall have the custody for otherwise he shall be prejudiced in his Rents and Services and not the Prochein Amy Cro. Jac. 105. Eavers and Skinner To seize the Estate of a Convict Felon Custom was if a Copy-holder be convict of Felony the Lord shall seize the Copy-hold Estate it is a good Custom 1 Leon. p. 1. Bornford and Packington 2 Brownl 217. Hitchins and Cooper Custom was that if the Tenant did not repair and it was presented by the Homage To repair or be presented The Tenant shall be amerced and the Lord shall distrain the Beasts of the Tenant and under-Tenant a good Custom March p. 161. Thorn and Tyler For the Custom which gives the distress knits it to the Land and so it is not meerly personal otherwise the Lord by such a devise as this viz. by making the Lease for one year by the Tenant should be defeated of his Services and though a Custom cannot extend to a Stranger Custom cannot extend to a Stranger Under-Tenant not a meer Stranger yet the under-Tenant is not a meer Stranger but as a customary Tenant for he shall have the Priviledges of a customary Tenant qui sentit commodum c. And transit terra cum onere He that shall have the Land ought to undergo the charge By all the Judges in that Case Customs as to Surrenders vide Surrenders Customs as to Forfeitures vide sub titulo Forfeitures Customs as to Admittances Fines vide Fines Admittances Custom The Lord not compellable to make a Grant but he is to make an Admittance That after the death of Tenant for Life of a Copy-hold the Lord is compellable to make the Estate to the eldest Son for Life and if he hath no Son to the Daughter and so imperpetuum this is not a good Custom but against Law because the Lord by this Custom is compellable to make a Grant Aliter if it be to make an Admittance More n. 1088. The Lord Grey's Case Customs in respect of the Tenants As to Forfeitures vide sub titulo Forfeitures As to Surrenders vide Surrenders As to Fines vide Fines c. Sparsim per tout That the Lord shall have the Estate of a Felon The Custom was if any Copy-holder of a Manor commit any Felony that he shall forfeit to the Lord his Copy-hold Estate and that the Lord upon presentment of this by the Homage may enter and seize the same it s a good Custom But the Case went farther H. a Copy-holder had killed one P. and the same was presented by the Homage If he be acquitted and they find that H. was Indicted for the same and Acquitted after this acquittal the Lord did enter and seize the Estate as forfeited But as to that point the Court gave not any Opinion 2 Brownl Rep. Gittins and Cooper By-Laws Custom was That the Steward of a Manor might make Laws and Ordinances for the well ordering of the Common and to assess a Penalty on those who broke those By-Laws also to prescrribe to Distrain for the Penalty Per Cur. The Custom is reasonable and the difference is where the Law or Ordinance takes away the whole profit of the Commoners and where it abridgeth it only And the Commoners are bound to take notice of these Ordinances March p. 28. James and Titney Custom to make By-Laws And this Law was made That no Tenant of the said Manor should put into such a Common any Steer being a year old or more upon pain of 6 d. for every such Offence and that it should be lawful to distrein the same It s avoided by Law for it s against common Right where a man hath Common for all his Cattel commonable to restrain him to one kind of Cattel and had it been that none should put in his Cattel before such a day that had been good for this doth not take away but order the Inheritance 1 Leon. 190. Erbery and Latton Custom was A Copy-holder for Life may nominate his Successor to have it for Life To compound for the Fine and the person nominated to compound with the Lord for the Fine and if he could not compound then he should give such a Fine as the Homage should Assess and should be admitted and hold for his Life it s a good Custom Cro. Jac. 368. Ford's Case 1 Rolls Rep. 125.195 More n. 1071. mesme Case 2 Brownl 85. Rolls and Mason Noy Rep. 2. Yestmester Custom In this he hath a greater Estate than a Sole Tenant for Life In Replevin and Avowry for not doing Suit To tender 8 d. for doing suit in a Court-Baron the Plaintiff sets forth a Custom That if any Tenant live at a distance and comes at Michaelmas and pays eight pence to the Lord and a penny to the Steward he shall be excused for not attending and then he said he tendred eight pence and the Lord refused Tender and refusal all one with payment if he avers That there are sufficient Copy-holders that live near the Manor its good and tender and refusal by Hales is all one with payment Modern Rep. p. 77. Legingham and Porphiry It s a good Custom this not being a customary Court but a Court-Baron where the free Suitors are Judges Siderfin p. 361. mesme Case 2 Keb. 344 380 851 mesme Case The Custom was Lord not compellable to make a Surrender That after the death of Tenant for Life of a Copy-hold the Lord is compellable to make an Estate to the eldest Son for Life and if he hath no Son to a Daughter and so in perpetuum The Justices were of Opinion that this was against Law More n. 1088. Lord Grey's Case Vide prius Of Customs in respect of the Estate Here I shall recite some few Cases of Customs about Leasing and Limitation of Estates when good or not As to the Custom concerning Leases Vide Leases and Licenses As to the Custom of Intailing Copy-holds and barring them Vide sub titulo Entails As to the Ceremony of Presentment vide Presentment Pled quod si terre sunt concesse habend sibi suis grantee habet in feodo Ra. Entries 627 116 155. Pled quod si terrae sunt concessae al. 2 pro vitis ille qui primo nominatus in copia habeat terras solus pro vita 3 Br. 475. Hern 73 83 124 654 712. Simile de terris

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