A Supplement By way of ADDITIONS to and AMPLIFICATIONS of the foregoing TREATISE, CONCERNING COPYHOLD and CUSTOMARY ESTATES: Wherein the Grounds laid down in the said Treatise are made good and confirmed by several Resolutions and Judgements given in the Courts of the Common Laws of England in divers Cases.  
LONDON, Printed by John Streater, James Fles●er, and Henry Twyford, Assigns of Richard Atkyes and Edward Atkyns, Esquires. 1668.  
Cum Gratia & Privilegio Regiae Majestatis.   

THE INTRODUCTION.  
THE Learned Author of the before-going Book, entitled, The Complete Copyholder, having in a very compendious manner treated of the Original of Manors and how constituted; and of their Demesn Lands, as also of the several Tenancies thereof, and of the nature of the Services, Qualities, and Courts incident and belonging thereunto; and (amongst the rest) of Copy-holders', Copy-holds and Customary Estates, and their Tenors, Services and Customs, distinguishing them from the other Tenors and Services; setting forth therein likewise the Antiquity and Original of Copy-holds, the Services, Duties, and other things incident to such Tenure; with divers Customs, Prescriptions and Usages, claimed by such Copy-hold-Tenants, together with the manner of Grants and Estates thereof, and how and in what manner they are either to be granted or accepted of: Now because the drift of the Author of the said Book was (as I conceive) to speak more particularly of Copyhold and Customary Estates then of the other Tenors; and therefore the Author of the said Book hath therein laid down some general Grounds concerning the same, but hath not confirmed them either by Judgements or Precedents of the Common Law, which would have more illustrated the same; and some things likewise concerning Copy-holds and Customary Lands and Estates have been omitted by the said Author worthy to be known by all Students and others whom the same may concern: therefore at the request of divers persons, by way of Amplification of what hath therein been formerly treated of by the said Author, and by way of Addition of what therein hath been omitted, I have added what hereafter followeth by way of a Supplement to the former Book; wherein I shall endeavour to contribute somewhat the novo, and to make good the former Grounds laid down in the said Book, and what shall be added thereunto, by several Resolutions and Judgements given in the Courts of the Common Laws of England in several Cases concerning the same. And therefore Surrenders (after a Grant thereof made) being one of the principal matters which do concern Copy-holders' and their Estates, I shall first begin with them, and then proceed to other matters concerning Copy-holders' and their Customary Estates.   

SECTION I.  
What a Surrender of Copyhold or Customary Estate is; to whom, and in what manner and place it is to be done; and who shall be said such a Tenant of a Copyhold as may make such a Surrender.  
SUrrenders of Copy-hold-lands and Copy-holders' are of two sorts; viz. Surrenders Actual, and Surrenders in Law.  
An Actual Surrender, according▪ to the Definition of Mr. Littleton, and the best Description of it, is a Copy-holder's yielding up of his Copy-hold-lands or Customary Estate into the hands of the Lord of the Manor, in the Court of the Manor, or unto his Bailiff, Reeve, or Steward, to such Uses and for such Estates as are particularly mentioned in the Surrender itself, made by a Deed or Writing; or if it be by Word, in the presence of the Lord and Tenants in the Court of the Manor. And yet it hath been a great doubt and Question, whether of Copy-holds or Customary Estates, any words used to the Lord himself shall amount to make it a good Surrender.  

Proofs.  
Vide Mr. Littleton, in his Chapter of 
Litt. 15. b. Book of Entries, 131. acc.  Tenant by Copy, etc. fol. 15. Ad hanc Curiam venit A B, & sursumreddidit in eadem Curia in manus Domini, etc. unum Messuagium, etc. ad usum C D. & haeredum suorum, etc.  
But if the Surrender be made in Court into the hands of the Lord or his Steward, it must be to such a person or his Use who is in esse and capable of such a Surrender, or that may take Presenty by force of the Surrender; otherwise such Surrender, though it be an Actual Surrender made in the Court of the Manor to the Lord or Steward himself, is not good.  
A Copyholder in Fee surrendered his Copy-hold-lands into the hands of 
H. 7 Jac. B. R. Simpson and Sothern's Case. H. 17 Jac. in B. R. Bambridge and Whitton's Case acc.  the Lord of the Manor, Habendum after his decease to the Use of an Enfant in Ventre sa mire, and if the said Enfant died within age, then to the Use of I S and his Heirs. In this Case these Points were Resolved. 1. If a Copyholder in Fee doth surrender his Copy-hold-lands into the hands of the Lord, to the Use of himself and his Heirs, That in that Case, because the Limitation of the Use to him who had it before was void, the Surrender thereof to the Lord himself was also void. 2. That the Surrender made to the Enfant in Ventre sa mire was not good as an immediate Surrender, and to take effect immediately, as the intention of the Surrenderer was it should, because it was of a , which could not begin at a day to come.  
But yet Quere, If the Surrender be made into the hands of the Lord, to the Use of the right Heirs of the Surrenderer, 
Vid. P. 30 Eliz. Allen and Palmer's Case. Leon. part 1. 101.  if the Lands shall not continue in the hands of the Lord till the death of the Copyholder who made the Surrender, for the Court doubted of it, Pasc. 30 Eliz. in Allen and Palmer's Case.  
A Surrender being then by the Copyholder himself, in the Court of the Manor, to the Lord, of his Copyhold or Customary Lands; if then, upon the very Act done, the Estate be in the Lord, or in the Surrenderer, or in whom it resteth, remaineth a Doubt. For Resolution thereof, I humbly conceive the Law to be, and so it hath been Resolved, That notwithstanding such a Surrender made, yet the Estate remaineth in the Copyholder who surrendreth, and is not in the Lord, or in any other person whatsoever. But in case where the Copyholder doth surrender his Copyhold in the Court of the Manor to the Use of the Lord himself, (which he may do) there, by such a Surrender, the Land is immediately vested in the Lord without any other Act done or required, because the Lord cannot take a Surrender, as to make thereof an Admittance unto himself.  
And to that purpose Vide Erish and Rive's Case, where it was Resolved, That 
Vid. Cro. part 1. in Erish and Rive's Case, acc.  if a Surrender be made by a Copyholder of his Copy-hold-lands into the hands of the Steward of the Manor to the Use of the Steward himself, that Surrender is good without any farther Act, for the reason aforesaid.  
Having thus shown what will be a good Surrender of Copyhold or Customary Lands by an actual Surrender in the Court of the Lord of the Manor, I shall now consider    

SECT. II.  
Whether a Copyhold may be said to be surrendered by any Act, Words, or Agreement, made betwixt the Lord and the Copyholder, or by the Copyholder with a Stranger made in the Court, in the Presence of the Lord or his Steward.  
I Do conceive generally, that no Act or Words of the Copyholder can 
Vid. Leon. 1. part, 172. Penruddock and Newman's Case.  pass his Copyhold in such a manner, as that the same shall be accounted to amount to a good Surrender of the same. But yet it rests upon a Difference.  

Proofs.  
If a Copyholder bargains and sells his Copyhold by Deed of Bargain and Sale enroled, though it be to the Lord of the Manor himself, it is void, and shall not amount to a Surrender.  
If Tenant for life of Lands at the Common Law agrees with his Lessor, or him in the Reversion, that he shall have his Interest in the Land for the Rent of 20 s. per annum; this Agreement will not amount to a Surrender of his Land by the Common Law. A fortiori, If a Copyholder, or other Customary Tenant, shall say to his Lord, or other person in the Court of the Manor, I agree to surrender my Lands; these words will not be a present or an express Surrender, nor will they amount to so much as a Relinquishing of his Estate: for in truth it is not any thing in present, but an Act to be done in futuro: Like unto the Case put by Wray 
Tr. 31 Eliz. in B. R. Sweeper and Randall's Case, Leon. 1 part, 178.  Chief Justice; A seized of the Manor of D demiseth the same Manor at will; that it is no Lease. No more in the other Case shall it be a Surrender, or a Relinquishing of his Copyhold or Copy-hold-estate. But yet notwithstanding it will be agreed that in some cases an express and particular Agreement made by a Copyholder with the Lord of the Manor for or concerning his Copy-hold-lands will amount to a Surrender of the same.  
The Case was, That the Lord of a Manor, pretending that a Copyholder had forfeited his Copy-hold-lands, entered 
M. 32 Eliz. in Ce● B. Collam and Sir Hugh Portman's Case, Leon. 1 part, 191.  into a Communication with the Copyholder concerning the same: Upon the Communication thereof had betwixt them, it was agreed, that the Copyholder should pay unto the Lord the sum of 10 l, which he paid accordingly; and that in consideration thereof, the Copyholder should have Election, whether he would have the Land assured unto him by Copy or by Bill, for the life of him and his Wife, or durante viduit eaten of the Wife: who made his Election to have the Land by Bill. It was the opinion of the Justices in that Case, That this Agreement was a good Surrender of the Lands, and a good Estate thereupon vested in the Wife for her life.  
A Copyholder in Fee came into the 
M. 13 Jat. B. R. Betfield and Adam's Case.  Court of the Lord of the Manor, and took a new Estate of his Copy-hold-lands from the Lord to himself for life, and afterwards to his Wife for life, and after to his Son for life. It was a Question, whether this Act of the Copyholder was the giving up and the relinquishing of his Estate of Inheritance in his Copyhold, and did amount to a Surrender of his old Estate therein. It was agreed in this Case, That if a Copyholder 
Vid. 29 Eliz. Co. 2. part, Lanc's Case.  of Inheritance takes a Lease by Indenture for years of the Lord of his Copyhold, that by that Act of his his Inheritance in his Copyhold is gone and determined. But it seemed to be the better opinion of the Court, That although that this taking of a new Estate shall imply a Surrender, and be accounted as to some purpose to amount to a Surrender; yet in the judgement of Law it shall be but as a Surrender to his Use for life, and after to his Wife and Son for their several lives, and that still the Inheritance of the Copyhold remains in him. But Quere this Case. For that H. 36 Eliz. in Co. B. Rot. 2640. in Adam's and Shepherd's Case, it seemeth to be adjudged to the contrary.  
A Copyholder said to his Lord, that 
Vid. Colman and Bedil●'s Case, Anderson's Reports 199. acc.  he would not hold his Land longer by Copy, but by a Bill under the Lord's hand for his life, who made him such a Bill, which the Copyholder accepted of. It was agreed by the Justices in that Case, That thereby his Copyhold was determined.    

SECT. III.  
Of Surrenders out of Court; and where Surrenders to the Steward, Deputy-steward, or into the hands of Tenants of the Manor, out of Court, shall be good, where not.  
BY the general Custom of the Realm a Copyholder may surrender his Lands in the Court of the Lord of the Manor, or out of Court, to the Lord, by the hands of Tenants of the Manor: But a Surrender out of Court to the Lord, or by the hands of Tenants of the Manor, or of the Bailiff or Reeve, is not good without a special Custom.  
The Lord hath such an absolute Interest in his Manor, that he may hold a Court within his Manor at what time he pleaseth: But he is not compellable by his Copyholder to hold or call a Court to accept of a Surrender. But if he doth accept of such a Surrender of his Copyholder out of Court, the same is good, whether it be to his own Use, or to the Use of other persons. And as the Lord may himself accept of a Surrender out of Court, so likewise may the Lord himself grant new Copies of the Lands out of Court, and such Grants shall be good. But the Lord himself cannot hold his own Court for any of the purposes aforesaid. But the Lord himself may give authority unto others to take Surrenders to the Use of others out of Court; and so may his Steward or Understeward give Conditions to others to take the like Surrenders out of Court to others Uses, which Conditions shall be in the nature of a Dedimus potestatem. And so it was Resolved in a Case out of Ireland, referred to the Judges of England, to certify their opinions therein; where the Case was, The Steward of the Court of a Manor in Ireland, being in England, sent a Writ in the nature of a Dedimus potestatem to one who was in Ireland, to take a Surrender there of Copy-hold-lands: and the opinion of the Judges here, to whom the Case was referred to advise and certify their opinions was, That such a Surrender taken by Dedimus was good enough. But note, that in such case it must be intended, that such giving power to take a Surrender, if it be to be done, it must be alleged to be done either by Prescription or Custom: for that Surrenders generally taken out of Court must be by Custom.  

Proofs.  
If the Understeward hold a Court 
2 E. 6. Br. Tenant per Copy 26.  within the Manor, and grants Copies by Court-Roll, without the authority of the Lord or of the high Steward, the Grants are good. But contrary it is, if he do it out of Court, as it seemeth. And there it is a Quere, if the high Steward out of Court may grant Lands by Copy. But it is clearly holden, that he cannot admit a Copyholder upon a Surrender out of Court, without a special authority from the Lord so to do.  
A Deputy-steward may take a Surrender 
19 Eliz. in Co. B.  out of Court, if the Office be granted to the Steward and his sufficient Deputies, or to be exercised by him and his sufficient Deputies; as it was Resolved 19 Eliz. in the Court of Common-Pleas.  
The Lord of a Manor may retain a 
8 Eliz. Dyer 248.  Steward by Word, and such a Retainer shall be good until he be discharged, and such a Steward may take a Surrender out of Court, as it is holden in Coke 4. part, in the Lady Holcroft's Case. And so was 
Co. 4. part, Holcroft's Case.  it Resolved Tr. 41 Eliz. in Harris and Jaye's Case in B. R. But Quere of the first 
Vr. 31 Eliz. C. B. Bl●grave and Wood's Case, Godb. 142.  Point. For that Tr. 31. Eliz. in Co. B. in Blagrave and Wood's Case, the opinion of the Justices was, That a Surrender to a Steward who was by word only, out of Court, was not good.  
In 17 Eliz. in Co. B. it was said by 
M. 17 Eliz. in C. B. by Dyer and Mounson.  Dyer and Mounson, That without a Prescription a Surrender of Copy-hold-land could not be out of Court, nor an Admittance out of Court, neither to the Lord himself nor to his Steward. But in divers places it is used by Custom so to be. And then and thereupon the doing of Fealty and the paying of the Lord's Fine shall be presented by the Homage to be done at the next Court. And all these things they said are to be done by Custom. And in that Case it was said by the Lord Dyer, That a Surrender out of Court might be to the Lord himself, to go by the way of Extinguishment.  
A Copyholder in Fee did, according to the Custom of the Manor, surrender his Copy-hold-lands into the hands of two Tenants; but the Surrender was to the Use of I S, to take effect immediately after his death. In this case it was Resolved, That as unto the Surrender into the hands of two Tenants, that might be good, although it was out of Court, by Custom. But because in that Case the Surrender was unto the Use of I S, to take effect immediately after the death of the Surrenderor, and a  cannot begin in futuro, or at a day to come, by the Common Law, and for that the Estates of Copy-holders' shall be directed according to the Rules of the Common Law; for that cause only the Surrender was holden to be void.  
But although a Surrender out of Court may be good into the hands of Tenants of the Manor by Custom; yet until such Surrender be presented by them in the Court of the Lord of the Manor, the Estate of the Lands doth remain in the Surrenderor, and nothing passeth thereby.  
A Copyholder in Fee did surrender 
M. 14 Jac. B. R. Froswell and Welshe's Case, Bridgman 52.  into the hands of two Tenants, according to the Custom, to the Use of A and B, who thereupon entered into and upon the Lands, and paid the Rent to the Lord; but before any Court was kept for the Manor, the Tenants to whom the Surrender was made, as also the Copyholder the Surrenderor, all of them died, and thereupon the Heir of the Copyholder Surrenderor entered upon the said A and B, and made a Lease for years of the Lands, which Lease was warranted by the Custom. In that Case it was Resolved, That the Lease for years was well made, because that before such time that the Presentment was made in Court of the Surrender, the Interest of the Copyholder did remain in the Surrenderor, and his Right descended unto and upon his Heir, and he might take & receive the Rents and Profits of the Lands; for that no person can have a Copyhold or a Copy-hold-Estate, but such a person who comes into the same by the Custom of the Manor, viz. by Admittance of the Lord, which in this Case A and B did not do. But in that Case it was doubted by the Justices, but not Resolved, Whether the Acceptance of the Rent by the Lord at the hands of the said A and B did amount to an Admittance or not.  
There were two joint-tenants in Fee 
M. 9 Jac. Cro. 2. part, Porter and Porter's Case.  of Lands which were holden by Copy. One of them, according to the Custom, surrendered into the hands of two Tenants to the Use of his last Will, and afterwards he made his Will, and thereby devised the Lands. In that Case it was holden by the Justices, That because the said Surrender was presented by the Tenants in the Court of the Lord, that the said Surrender should bind the Survivor; for that it shall have a relation to the first time of the Surrender. But if in that case the Copyholder who made the Surrender had died before the same had been presented, than the Copyhold had survived to the surviving joint-tenant.  
Two Coparcenors, Copy-holders', were 
p. 10 Jac. B. R. Godb▪ 141.  in possession; the one did surrender her Reversion in the Moiety after her decease. It was adjudged a void Surrender, because a  could not commence in futuro, as well of Copy-hold-lands as of Free-hold-lands.  
A Copyholder surrendered a Message 
M. 8 Jac. in B. R. Cro. 3. part, Burgoyne and Spurling's Case.  and 20 Acres of Lands into the hands of two Tenants out of Court, to the Use of I S and his Heirs, upon Condition, that if he paid I S 100 l. before such a day, the Surrender to be void. Before the day of payment he surrendered one Acre, parcel of the 20 Acres, unto I D and his Heirs, and afterwards he performed the Condition by paying the 100 l. and afterwards in Court he surrendered the said Message and 20 Acres of Lands into the hands of the Steward, to the Use of I N and his Heirs. It was found by the Jurours that the first Surrender made to I S was never presented, but the two last Surrenders were presented. In this Case it was Resolved, That by the Conditional Surrender nothing passed, until it was presented; but the Interest, Right and Possession remained in the Copyholder who made the Surrender, so as he might transfer it to whom he thought good. For although it was a Surrender into the hands of Tenants, and so according to the manner of the Surrender the same was good by the Custom; yet because the said Surrender into the hands of Tenants was but an Inchoation of the Case to whose Use the Surrender was made, which had no farther perfection or prosecution, but became void by the performance of the Condition, the first of the two last Surrenders presented, viz. the Surrender to the Use of I D and his Heirs, stood good, and the last Surrender to the Use of I N and his Heirs took no effect.  
A Copyholder in Fee made a Letter 
Coke 9 part, Comb's Case.  of Attorney to two Tenants of the Manor, to surrender his Copyhold out of Court unto the Use of I S and his Heirs: They surrendered the same accordingly, and at the next Court brought in the Surrender into Court, (but no Custom was found to warrant such a Surrender.) Notwithstanding in that Case it was Resolved, 1. That it was a good Surrender, because he might do it de communi jure without alleging any Custom. 2. When the Tenants shown the same in Court, and the Authority which was given to make the Surrender, all which they had done was Resolved to be good, and legally done.    

SECT. iv  
Where, although Surrenders are made to the Lord or to Tenants out of Court by Custom, yet nothing passeth out of the Copyholder before Admittance: And what shall be a good Admittance in such case, what not.  
ADmittance is the life and perfection of the Copy-holder's Estate, and before Admittance the Tenant is not a perfect Copyholder.  

Proofs.  
The Custom of a Manor was, That a 
M. 23 Car. B. R. Baker and Denham's Case.  Copyholder might surrender his Copyhold out of Court to the Use of another; the party to whose Use it was, to be admitted at the next Court. Such a Surrender was made, but before the next Court Cestuy que use died, and so was not admitted. It was Resolved in this Case, That he was not a Copyholder within the Custom; for by the Surrender before Admittance the Surrenderee hath no possesson, and the Heir is in by Descent, and holds by the Copy of his Ancestor, and so the Cestuy que use is not a perfect nor complete Copyholder. And it may be compared to the Case where a man makes a Feoffment in Fee of Lands, and makes Livery within the View; it is no perfect Livery till he doth enter into the Lands, but the Feoffor may punish a Trespass there done in the interim, for it is but inchoatum until he enter. And so it is in case of a Copyholder; the Surrender is but quasi inchoatum, as before, till he be admitted to the Copyhold, Vid. Froswell's Case before.  
In 26 Eliz. the Question was, Whether 
26 Eliz. Galloway's Case vouched in Bulstr. 3. part, ●17.  the Copyholder might have an Action upon the Case against the Lord for not holding his Court, and not admitting of him to whom a Surrender was made according to the Custom of the Manor. It was Resolved in that Case, That the Copyholder himself might have the Action. But in that Case it was Resolved, That he to whom the Surrender was made, until Admittance, by force of the Surrender had nothing; it was only an Act begun, and not perfected; and therefore in such case he could not maintain the Action of the Lord for not admitting of him.  
A Surrender of a Copyhold is like to the Induction into a Benefice: before Induction there is no Possession; so before Admittance there is no Possession.  
A Copyholder, according to the Custom, 
M. 12 Jac, Robinson and Green's Case, Bridgman 82, 83. Bulstr. 3. part, 238. acc.  did surrender out of Court into the hands of Tenants to the Use of I S and his Heirs; which Surrender was delivered into the Court by the said Tenants and there presented; which was accepted of by the Steward of the Manor, and an Entry made thereof in the Court-Roll, and a Copy of the Surrender was delivered unto I S; and in the Copy it was, viz. Compertum est per Homagium, that the Surrender was to I S and his Heirs. It was the opinion of the Court in this Case, That none of these colourable things did imply a perfect Admittance to the Copyhold. For 1. The Acceptance of the Presentment by the Steward from the Homage was no more than what he was bounden to do as being Judge of the Court. 2. The Entry of it in the Roll was but an Office of Duty, being but an Evidence for the Lord, as also for him to whose Use the Surrender was; and so was the delivery of the Copy to I S, the Cestuy que use. But none of these things did imply the Consent or Will of the Lord, that the Cestuy ●ue use should be admitted or have the Lands according to the Surrender; and all these things together do not imply any Admittance, for all of them may be done, though no Admittance be in the case.  
Note, It was Resolved in the Court of 
M. 6 Jac. in B. R. Wilson and Weddall's Case, ●●lv. 144.  King's Bench, That if a Surrender be of a Copyhold to I S, it is of no effect until he be admitted Tenant: and if before Admittance I S doth surrender the Land unto another, a Stranger, who is admitted, yet nothing passeth to the Stranger by this Admittance of the Stranger.    

SECT. V  
Where some things, and what things, may be done by the Copyholder or his Heir before Admittance.  

Proofs.  
1. THE Heir of a Copyholder may 
Co. 4. part, Clark and Penyfather's Case.  enter and have an Action of Trespass before Admittance. 2. A Possessio Fratris or Sororis may be of a Copyhold before Admittance. 3. A Descent shall not bind the Heir of a Copyholder. 4. He may surrender unto a Stranger before Admittance.  
A Copyholder in Fee had Issue two 
Vid. 12 Eliz. Dyer 291.  Daughters by divers Women, and died seized; the Daughters entered, and took the Profits many years; and before Admittance, the eldest Daughter died without Issue, and afterwards the youngest Daughter was admitted to the whole Land, as sole Heir to the Father. In this Case it was holden, That the possession of the eldest Daughter, though before Admittance, should make her Sister, though of the half blood, inheritable to the Land.  
If a Copyholder in Fee by Licence 
24 Eliz. in Co. B. Coke 4. part, 23. Brown's Case acc.  maketh a Lease for years, and the Lessee entereth, the Copyholder having a Son and a Daughter by one Woman, and a Son by another; the Land shall descend to the Daughter of the whole blood, although that the Son died, and was not admitted to the Copyhold as Heir to his Father. And that that should be Possessio Fratris of a Copyhold before Admittance.  
If a Copyholder doth surrender to a 
40 Eliz. in B. R. Arnold and George's Case, Yelv. 16. acc.  Stranger, and the Steward will not admit him, and the Stranger enters, and holds the Land; if the Lord bring Trespass against him before Admittance, he may plead Not guilty, and his Plea shall be good, and it shall be found against the Lord, because he is particeps criminis to the Admittance, because it shall be intended, that the Lord would not suffer the Steward to admit him to the Copyhold.  
A Copyhold was seized by the Lord 
Tr. 3 Jac. B. R. joiner and Lamber●'s Case, Cro. 2. part, 36.  of the Manor, and he granted it to another in Fee, who died, and his Heir was admitted; then the first Copyholder died, and his Heir entered, and surrendered unto a Stranger in Fee. It was Resolved in that Case, That the Entry of the Heir was lawful, though he was not admitted to the Copy-hold-estate, and the Descent of the Land to the Heir of the Grantee of the Lord should not bind him. And farther it was Resolved in that Case, That the Heir of the Copyholder being in the Land, his Surrender of the Land unto a Stranger was good before his Admittance.    

SECT. VI  
Where the Lord is but an Instrument to convey the Copyhold by Admittance only, and that the Surrenderee is in by the Copyholder, and not by the Lord.  
ALthough generally (as before is said) 
Vide Blow. Com. 421. in Hare and Bickley's Case.  a Copyholder cannot enter and have Seisin of the Land without the Admittance of the Lord, no more than a Parson or Prebend can have Seism, or be full Incumbent, till the  hath inducted him, or the Dean and Chapter installed him: yet the Lord is but an Instrument used for the settling of the Copyholder in his Copyhold, and to transfer the Land secundum formam & effectum Sursumredditionis, and the Estate, Right and Interest in the Copyhold doth not pass as from the Lord; but upon the Admittance made by the Lord the Copyholder is in by him who made the Surrender, and by the Custom, and seized of the Copyhold secundùm Consuetudinem Manerii, etc.  

Proofs.  
The Lord of a Manor demised Copyhold 
M. 40 Eliz. B. R. Pay and Brown's Case, Cro. 1. part.  of Inheritance to A, upon Condition that he should pay to B 20 s. yearly during his Minority, and 100 l. at his full age. A paid not the 20 s. but surrendered the Land to the Use of P and his Heirs. The Lord admits him. B attains his full age, and the 100 l. is not paid. The Lord enters for the Condition broken, and grants the Land by Copy to B. P enters upon him. It was holden in this Case, That his Entry was lawful, for that he to whose Use the Surrender was made comes in by him who surrendered, and not by the Lord.  
A Copyholder in Fee surrendered his Lands into the hands of the Lord by the 
Tr. 15 Jac. B. R. Brook's Case, Poph. 125.  hands of Tenants, according to the Custom, without expressing to whose Use it should be. At the next Court he was admitted Habendum to him and his Wife in tail. It was objected, That no Use being expressed, the Surrender was void, and the Admittance not good, to pass an Estate to the Wife not being named in the Premises, but in the Habendum only. It was Resolved, 1. The Surrender was good, for it shall be intended, that the Surrender generally made was to such Use as was specified in the Admittance; and the Lord was only as an Instrument put in trust to convey the Estate, and make such Admittance as he who surrendered would have him to make. 2. That the Wife should take by the Admittance, though she was not named in the Premises, but in the Habendum only.  
If a Copyholder surrendreth his Lands 
33 Eliz. Co. 4. part, Westwick's Case.  to the Use of I S, the Lord hath but a Customary power to make the Admittance secundùm effectum & formam Sursumredditionis. And if in such case the Lord grants the Land to I S and a Stranger, all shall enure to I S, and nothing to the Stranger. And if the Copyholder doth surrender his Lands without a Condition, if the Lord doth admit the Tenant upon a Condition, the Condition is void; for that after the Admittance the Surrenderee is in by him who made the Surrender, and not by the Lord.  
A Copyholder surrenders to the Use 
28 Eliz. Co. 4. part, Bunting's Case.  of another; the Lord admits him to hold to him and his Heirs: yet he shall have but an Estate for life, for that after the Admittance he is in by him who made the Surrender, and not by the Lord.  
The Custom of the Manor was, That 
Coke 8. part, in Swayne's Case.  a Copyholder for life might take Timber to repair: The King made a Lease of the Manor, excepting Woods and Underwoods' and Trees: The Lessee for years of the Manor grants a Copyhold upon which were Timber-trees to another for life, who cuts Timber to repair. It was Resolved, That in this Case, notwithstanding the Severance and Exception, the Grantee should have the Trees, for that the Estate of the Copyholder who comes in by a voluntary Grant is in by the Custom, and the Lord is but an Instrument to make the Grant.  
When a Copyholder surrenders to the 
Co. 4. part, in Tavernor's Case.  Use of another, and the Lord admits him; now he who is admitted is in by him who makes the Surrender. For in a Plaint in the nature of a Writ of Entry in the Per, he shall be supposed to be in the Per by him who made the Surrender, because the Lord is but an Instrument to make the Admittance; and he who is admitted shall not be subject to any Charges or Encumbrances of the Lord, for the Lord hath but a Customary power to make the Admittance secundùm effectum sursumredditionis, as before is said.  
A Copyholder surrenders to the Use 
M. 37 Eliz. Cro. 1. part, Berry and Green's Case.  of I S; the Lord refuseth to admit him: he cannot enter, unless there be an especial Custom to warrant it; but if there be, than he may enter.    

SECT. VII.  
Where the Admittance of the particular Tenant shall be the Admittance of him in the Remainder.  

Proofs.  
A Copyholder in Fee by Licence made a Lease for years; the Lessee enters; 
M. 24 Eliz. Co. 4. part, Browne's Case.  the Copyholder, having Issue a Son and a Daughter by one Woman, and a Son by another, died; the eldest Son died before Admittance. In this Case it was Resolved, (amongst other things) That the Admittance of Tenant for life is the Admittance of him in the Remainder, but not to bar the Lord of his Fine, which he ought to have by the Custom.  
The Father a Copyholder in Fee 
P. 36 Eliz. B. R. Coke 4. part, Fitch and Huckley's Case.  made a Surrender to the Use of himself for life, and after to the Use of his Son for life, and after to the Use of his last Will. The Father was admitted, and died: The Lord pretending a Forfeiture entered, and granted the Copyhold to a Stranger. Resolved, That the Admittance of the Tenant for life was the Admittance of him in the Remainder; and then the Land could not vest in the Grantee of the Lord.  
It was Resolved by the Justices, That 
Tr. 36 Eliz. B. R. Deal and Higden's Case, Moor 358.  the Admittance of Tenant for life of a Copyhold is the Admittance of him in the Remainder, because he is to pay his Fine which is entire, and no Fine is due to be paid by him in the Remainder to the Lord: but otherwise it is of him in the Reversion. 
M. 39 Eliz. B. R. Cro. 2. part, Gippin and Bannye's Case.   
A Copyholder surrendered to the Use of one for life, the Remainder to another in Fee: Tenant for life was admitted: He in the Remainder surrendered to the Use of I S; which Surrender the Lord accepted of, and admitted him, and then the Tenant for life died. It was holden in this Case, That the Heir of I S should have the Land, for that the Admittance of the Tenant for life was the Admittance of him in the Remainder; and also because the Acceptance of the Lord was quasi an Admittance to him in the Remainder.  
A Copyholder in Fee surrendered to 
Tr. 2 Jac. B. R. Auncelme and Auncelme's Case, Cro. 2. part.  the Use of his Wife for life, the Remainder to his younger Son in Fee, and died: The Wife was admitted, but the younger Son refused to be admitted during the life of his Mother, but afterwards, without other Admittance, he surrendered to the Use of I S. It was Resolved, That the Admittance of the Mother Tenant for life was the Admittance of the younger Son in the Remainder, because they made but one Estate.  
A Copyholder had Issue 3 Sons, B, C, 
Hil. 31 Eliz. B. R. Bullein and Graunt's Case, Leon. 1 part, 174●  and D, and surrendered to the Use of his last Will, and thereby devised the same to his Wife for life, the Remainder to C and the Heirs of his body: The Wife died after Admittance, and the Lord granted the Copyhold to D in Fee, who surrendered to the Use of I S for life, and after died without Issue: B the eldest Son entered. It was adjudged, That his Entry was lawful, and that Admittance of him was not necessary; for that if a Copyholder surrendreth to the Use of one for life, he in the Reversion or Remainder may enter without any new Admittance.    

SECT. VIII.  
By what and whose Act, either of the Law, of the Copyholder himself, or of the Lord, severally or all together, the Copy-hold-land or Estate shall be gone, determined, or extinguished; and where suspended only.  
HAving in the Sections before declared where a Surrender and Admittance thereupon, either by the Lord or his Steward in Court, or to them, or into the hands of Tenants out of Court, shall be good, and where not: Let us now look upon this Division, and see in what case the Copyhold or Copy-holder's Estate or Interest shall be said to be gone, determined, or extinguished; and by what and whose Act it was or may be determined. First, It may be determined by the Act of the Lord himself. 2. By the Act of the Copyholder. 3. By Acts of them both joined together. And lastly, by the Act of the Law. All which will evidently appear by the Judgements, Resolutions and Precedents after ensuing.  

Proofs.  
The Lord by his Act cannot, without 
Co. 2. part, 17. in Lane'● Case.  the concurrent Act of the Copyholder himself, determine the Estate and Interest which the Copyholder hath in his Copyhold. And therefore the Severance of the  and Inheritance of the Land holden by Copy of Court-Roll (being done by the Act of the Lord) doth not determine the Copy-holder's Estate, or extinguish the Copyhold. For although that the Estate of the Copyholder be but an Estate at will, viz. ad 
Co. 4. part, 21. in Brown's Case.  voluntatem Domini secundùm Consuetudinem Manerii; yet Custom hath so established the Estate of the Copyholder, that he is not removable at the will of the Lord, so long as he performs the Customs and Services.  
If a Copyholder will join with the Lord in a Deed of Feoffment of the Manor, there, by that Act of them both, the Copyhold is extinct; as it was said by the Lord Anderson Chief Justice, P. 24 Eliz. in Co. B.  
A Feme-sole was Lady of a Manor, to 
Vid. Cro. 1. part, 5 acc.  which were divers Copy-holders': One of the Copy-holders' did intermarry with the Seignioress of the Manor. It was the opinion of the Justices, That the Intermarriage was only a Suspension of the Copyhold, and not an Extinguishment of it. But afterwards they joined in suffering a common Recovery of the Land; and upon that their Act it was Resolved, that the Copyhold was extinguished.  
Husband and Wife Copy-holders' in 
H. 26 Eliz. in Co. B. Cro. 1. part, Stockbridge's Case.  Fee to them and their Heirs: The Husband for Money obtained an Estate of  to him and his Wife, and the Heirs of their bodies. It was Resolved in that Case, That by the Acceptance of the new Estate the Copyhold was determined.  
If a Copyholder doth surrender to 
M. 29 Eliz. in C. B. Godb. 101.  him who hath a Lease for years of the Manor to the Use of the same Lessee, by that Act of his the Copy-hold-estate is extinct.  
The Lord of a Manor sold the  
P. 30 Eliz. B. R. Leon. 1. part, 102. Wakesield's Case.  of a Copyhold unto another, and so it was divided from the Manor; and afterwards the Copyholder did release to the Purchasor. It was the opinion of the Justices, That by this Release the Copyhold was gone and extinct. But in that Case it was said, That if a Copyholder be ousted, so as the Lord of the Manor is disseised, and the Copyholder releaseth to the Disseisor, Nihil operatur by such Release.  
A Copyholder had common by Usage in the Wastes of the Lord as to his Message and Lands belonging: The Copyhold comes to the Lord, who after grants the same to the Copyholder cum pertinentiis. In this Case it was holden, That these words, viz. (cum pertinentiis) could not create a new Common, and the Common first holden was by Custom annexed to the Customary Estate, and was absolutely extinguished.  
If there be Lessee for life, the Remainder 
M. 9 Jac. in C. B. adjudge. acc.  for life of a Copyhold, and the first Tenant for life purchaseth the  of the Copyhold, and afterwards levieth a Fine thereof, and five years pass: It was adjudged, That in that Case by the Fine levied the Copyhold was not gone nor destroyed, and that this Fine was not a Bar to him who was in Remainder in life of the Copyhold.  
There was Tenant for life of a Copyhold: 
P. 8 Jac. in Co. B. Moor and Rideval's Case.  The Lord granted the Reversion of the Copyhold after the determination of the particular Estate to another for 20 years: Afterwards the Copyholder, who was Tenant for life, by Deed made a Lease for life of his Copyhold, and made Livery, which was a Forfeiture of his Copy-hold-estate. It was the opinion of the Justices in that Case, That this Act of the Tenant for life was not a Determination or an Extinguishment of the Copyhold: For although it was a Determination of the particular Estate of the Copyholder, and that he in the Remainder might enter; yet the Land remained Copyhold as it was before.  
The Custom of a Manor is, That if 
3 Jac. in B. R. Lashmor and Averi●'s Case, Cro. 2. part.  a Copyholder in Fee dieth seized, his Wife shall hold the Land during her life as Free-Bench: The Lord enfeoffeth the Copyholder of the Land. It was adjudged, That she should not hold the Land for her life as Free-Bench, but it was gone by the Purchase. Contrary, if the Lord had enfeoffed a Stranger of the Land.  
C purchased a Copyhold from A 
Vid. 30 H. 8. Dyer, acc.  Lord of the Manor, to him and his Wife and their Child for their lives: Afterwards A by Indenture granted the Freehold to B for life, rendering Rend, and made Livery: And afterwards A levied a Fine sur Conusans de droit, etc. too C of the same Lands, who afterwards accepted of the Rent from B. It was holden in that Case, That by the Acceptance of the Rent from B the Copyhold of C was destroyed and determined.  
Note, If a Copyholder takes a Lease 
M. 15 & 16 Eliz. in Co. B.  for years of his Copy-hold-lands, the Copyhold is determined: and so it is, if the Lord leaseth a Copyhold for years which is escheated, the Copyhold is determined. But if a Copyholder purchaseth the Manor, the Copyhold is not determined, but suspended, because there is no Interruption, but it is able to be granted again, because by the Custom it sufficeth that it hath been demised and demisable.    

SECT. IX.  
Of Forfeitures of Copy-holds and Copy-hold-estates; and what Acts or things done by the Copyholder shall amount unto or be adjudged a Forfeiture of the Copy-holder's Estate, what not.  
THE general Grounds of Forfeitures of Copy-holds, or of their Estates, are declared in the former part of this Treatise, unto which I shall refer you. That which I shall now say is but by way of Amplification of those Grounds, with some Judgements and Authorities in several Cases upon sundry differences. All Forfeitures may be reduced unto these Heads: Either voluntary Acts done to the prejudice of the Lord, or negligent or wilful refusal to do and pay his Duties and Services to the Lord, which by the Laws and Customs of the Manor he ought to do and perform.  

Proofs.  
A Copyholder makes a Lease either 
Coke 4. part, Murrel's Case.  for life or years of his Copy-hold-lands, which is not warranted by the Custom of the Manor: now although such Lease shall be a good Lease as betwixt the Copyholder and his Lessee, and he shall not avoid his own Lease; yet as unto the Lord it is a Forfeiture of the Copyhold and of his Estate, and the Lord shall take advantage of such Forfeiture, and may enter upon the Lands leased.  
So if a Copyholder makes a Lease of 
H. 37 Eliz. East and Harding's Case.  his Copyhold for 3 years by word, to begin at Michaelmas or at a day to come; although it is a good Lease as betwixt the parties to it, yet it is a Forfeiture of the Copyhold to the Lord; and so it was holden Hil. 37 Eliz. in East and Harding's Case.  
A Copyholder of a Manor made a 
P. 10 Jac. in Co. B. the Lady Mountague's Case, Cro. 2. part, acc.  Lease of his Free-hold-lands for 10 years, and, to avoid a Forfeiture, made a Lease of his Copy-hold-lands for one year; but covenanted with his Lessee, that he should enjoy the Copy-hold-lands de anno in annum, during the 10 years. It was the opinion of the Justices in this Case, That because this Demise of the Copyholder was but for one year, and so warranted both by Law and Custom, and it was but only a Covenant on the part of the Lessee that he should hold it for a longer time, that this was no Forfeiture, although the Lord pretended the same to be a Forfeiture.  
The Lord licenced his Copyholder to 
M. 27 Eliz. in Co. B. by Anderson. Moor 184.  make a Lease of his Copy-hold-lands for 21 years, to begin at Michaelmas following: The Copyholder by Indenture made a Lease accordingly; but afterwards, before Michaelmas, he made another Lease by Indenture to another person, to begin at Michaelmas following. It was the opinion of the Lord Anderson Chief Justice, Mich. 27 Eliz. in Co. B. That the making of this second Lease, being without the Licence of the Lord, was a Forfeiture of his Copyhold.  
A Copyholder for life hath Licence 
M. 15 Jac. in B. R. Worlidge and Banburie's Case, Cro. 2. part.  of the Lord to make a Lease for 3 years, if he so long live, and he makes a Lease for 3 years without such Limitation. It was holden to be no Forfeiture of his Estate in the Copyhold, because the Law makes such a Limitation to the Estate which he makes, that it shall continue but during his life. But if he had been a Copyholder in Fee, it had been a Forfeiture of his Estate to have made such an absolute Lease, because he had done more than he was licenced to do by the Law. And so it was adjudged in Hall and Arrowsmith's Case, which see in Popham's Reports, 185.  
If a Copyholder without Licence of 
M. 8 Jac. in B R. Ward's Case.  the Lord doth erect a new House upon his Copy-hold-lands, some opinion hath been, That the same is a Forfeiture of his Estate. But I doubt much of that Case, because the Act done is for the benefit and advantage of the Lord, and not to his Prejudice. Quere of it.    

SECT. X.  
Where denial or refusal to pay his Rent, Fine, or to do his other Customs and Services, shall be a Forfeiture of his Copyhold and Copy-hold-estate, and where not.  

Proofs.  
A Copyholder in Fee was seized of 
H. 33 Eliz. crisp and Fryer's Case in Moor.  Land rendering Rend at Michaelmas and our Lady-day. The Lord at the last instant of the day of payment demanded the Rent upon the Land, and the Copyholder was not there, nor any for him, to pay it. It was a Question, if his Nonpayment of the Rent was a Forfeiture of his Copyhold or not. And the better opinion of the Court seemed to be, That it was a Forfeiture, because the Copyholder was to take peremptory notice of the day of payment of his Rent, and his not being there seemed to imply that it was a voluntary Denial, or Refusal at the least, of doing the same. But Quere of it; for it was Resolved in another Case, Tr. 21 Jac. in C. B. That 
Tr. 21 Jac. in Co. B.  not payment of Rent, or of the Fine upon Admittance to his Copyhold, was no Forfeiture of his Copy-hold-estate, without there was some express verbal Denial of it, which there was not in this Case.  
A Copyholder seized by force of several 
M. 37 Eliz. B. R. Tavernor and Lord Cromwel's Case, Cro. 1. part.  Copies of Black-acre by the Rent of 4ds, Whiteacre by the Rent of 4ds, and Green-acre by the Rent of 6d, denied the Rent of Black-acre. In that case it was holden to be a Forfeiture of that Acre, but no Forfeiture of the other two Acres, because, although they were all in one hand, yet because they were holden by several Rents, the Forfeiture of the one Acre cannot be the Forfeiture of the other two Acres.  
No Fine is either due or payable to the Lord, but either upon a Descent, or 
Vid. Coke 4. part, 28. in Sands Case.  upon an Admittance. But if such a Copyholder upon his Admittance shall make an absolute Refusal to pay the Fine to the Lord, the same is a Forfeiture of his Copyhold and of his Estate. But there such a Fine must be reasonable. For if the Fine assessed by the Lord be an unreasonable Fine, (of which the Judges shall determine) a Refusal or Denial of the Copyholder to pay the same shall be no Forfeiture of his Estate or Copyhold.  
Note, It was Resolved by the Justices, 
M. 43 Eliz. Dalton and Hamond's Case, Moor● 622.  That if the Lord demandeth an unreasonable Fine of his Copyholder, and he refuseth to pay it, it is no Forfeiture; otherwise where it is a reasonable Fine. If a Fine be certain, the Tenant is to bring it with him to the Court, and to pay it before Admittance; and if he be not ready to pay it, it is a Forfeiture, and so it was adjudged. But what shall be a reasonable Fine or an unreasonable Fine, aught to be determined per arbitrium boni viri; and the Court and Justices of it shall be Judges of the Reasonableness of the same, if it be pleaded that the Fine demanded by the Lord, or the Distress for it, be unreasonable or excessive.  
A Copyholder seized of Copy-hold-lands 
M. 6 Jac. in C. B. Willows and Willows Case, Coke Select Cases.  of the yearly value of 53s. 4d. per annum, and no more, surrendered them into the hands of the Lord of the Manor to the Use of I S and his Heirs: The Custom of the Manor was, That upon the Admission of any person a reasonable Fine shall be assessed by the Lord or his Steward to be paid. The Steward at the Court holden for the said Manor assessed a Fine of 5l. 6s. 8ds. (the value of the Lands for 2 years) to be paid by I S for a Fine; which Fine being requested of him by the Lord to pay, he refused to pay the same; whereupon the Lord entered upon the Lands for a Forfeiture. In which Case these Points were Resolved. 1. That if the Fine assessed had been reasonable, yet a certain time was to be set, and a certain place where it should be paid: for it shall not be intended that the Tenant hath sufficient Money about him to pay a Fine which is uncertain to be assessed. 2. That the Fine assessed by the Steward was an unreasonable Fine: and 3. That the Refusal was no Forfeiture.  
If the Fine of a Copyholder be assessed 
H. 13 Jac. C. B. Denny and Lemon's Case, Hob. 135. Co. 11. part, Godfrie's Case acc.  by the Lord or his Steward, be the Fine reasonable or unreasonable, the Lord must demand the Fine of the Copyholder before he can enter upon the Copyhold for not payment thereof, and the Reasonableness or Unreasonableness thereof shall be adjudged by the Court.  
Lands being Customary Lands, and 
P. 30 Eliz. B. R. Aumory and Eves Case, Leon. 1 part, 100  by the Custom discendable to the younger Son, the Father died, the younger Son being of the age of 2 years: Thirty years incurred after the death of the Father, and no Court had been holden for the Lord of the Manor: But in the interim the younger Son had made a Lease of the Lands to a Stranger; and after, at the next Court holden for the Manor, he came into Court and prayed to be admitted, but the Steward refused to admit him. It was holden in this Case, That the Lease made by him was good, and that there was no negligence in him to be admitted to the Copy-hold-estate; for that it was holden in this Case, That if a Copyholder dieth, his Heir within age, he is not bound to come at any Court during his Nonage to pray Admittance, or to tender his Fine for the same; and if the death of the Ancestor be not presented, nor Proclamations made that the Heir come in to take up the Land and pay his Fine, the Heir shall not forfeit his Land for such neglect, although he be of full age.  
If the Homagers in a Court-Baron 
4 Eliz. Dyer 211.  being Copy-holders' do refuse to make their Presentments, it is a Forfeiture of their Copy-holds: and so it was Resolved to be by both the Chief Justices in the Star-Chamber in the Earl of Arundel's Case.  
A Copyholder came not to the Lord's 
H. 13 Jac. B. R. Belfield and Adam's Case, Bulstr. 3. part, 81.  Court of the Manor to do his Suit and Service by the space of 3 years together. The Question was, if it was a sufficient cause of Forfeiture of his Copyhold. It was said by the Court, That it was no cause of Forfeiture, if a Warning be not given by the Lord of the time of his Court to be holden, and notice thereof given to the Copyholder himself; and the withdrawing of his Suit by a Copyholder is only fineable: but if he doth deny to do his Suit and Serv●●e, than it is a Forfeiture of his Copyhold: and so was it adjudged M. 14 Jac. in B. R. in Hammond and Winibank's Case.  
Summons was given at the Church-door 
H. 36 Eliz. in Co. B. Godb. 142.  for a Copyholder to appear at the Lord's Court, and do his Suit and Service; upon which Summons he did not 
Vid. M. 30 Eliz. C. B. Sir John Bruanche's Case, Leon. 1 part, 104. Where general Warning of a Copyholder to appear at the Lord's Court given within the Parish shall be sufficient, where not.  appear. The Doubt was, if it was a cause of Forfeiture of his Copyhold. It was the opinion of the whole Court, That it was no cause of Forfeiture of his Copyhold, because that it was not showed that it was the Custom to make such Summons: and the Court said, That it were hard to make it a Forfeiture, because perhaps the Copyholder had not Notice of it: and they held that in such case Notice must be given to the person, and his Refusal must be a wilful Refusal.  
The Custom of a Manor was, That if 
H. 25 Eliz. in B. R. Borneford and Sir John Packington's Case, Leon. 1. part, 1.  a Copyholder died seized, his Wife should hold his Lands as her Free-Bench, and be admitted Tenant, and that the Son should not be admitted Tenant during the life of his Mother: and farther the Custom was, That if any Copyholder committed Felony, and it were presented by the Homage, that the Lord might seize the Copyhold as forfeit: The Copyholder died; his Wife was admitted to her Free-Bench: The Son committed Felony; the Wife died. The Question was, if the Lord might seize the Copyhold as forfeit. It was objected, He could not, for that the Son was not Tenant at the time of the Forfeiture committed, and so the Lord could not then seize, and the Custom should be taken strictly. But notwithstanding it was Resolved, That the Lord should have the Land as forfeit, and that the Son was a Copyholder within the Intent of the Custom.  
If Husband and Wife be Joynt-copy-holders' of the purchase of the Husband; during the Coverture the Husband is attainted of Felony, and dieth: It is no Forfeiture of any part of the Copyhold. But if the Purchase be made before the Coverture, than it is a Forfeiture of the moiety.  
The King being Lord of a Manor, a 
M. 5 Jac. in Scaceario, Godb. 269.  Copyholder within the Manor made a Lease of his Copyhold for 3 Lives; and the surviving Tenant for life continued the possession of the Lands for 40 years. Though the making of such a Lease for 3 Lives was in Law a Forfeiture of the Copyhold; yet because it did not appear upon the Endorsement of the Deed that Livery was made, it was holden, That the King could not take advantage of the Forfeiture.  
If a Copyholder doth bargain and sell his Copy-hold-lands by Deed indented and enroled, it was Resolved, The same was no cause of Forfeiture of the Copyhold of which the Lord can take advantage, because the Copyhold did not pass by the Deed: and so it was said it was adjudged in London's Case.  
So, if a Copyholder for life surrendreth to the Use of another in Fee, and 
35 Eliz. Bullock's Case.  besides that makes Livery of the Land; this is no Forfeiture of his Copyhold, because the Estate passeth by the Surrender, and not by the Livery.  
If a Copyholder for life cuts down Timber-trees, it is a Forfeiture of his Copyhold: and so it was adjudged in Belfield and Adam's Case. But if a Copyholder makes a Lease for years, and the Lessee cuts down Timber-trees, or commits other Waste upon the Copy-hold-lands, the Lord cannot enter upon the Land for a Forfeiture; but in such case the Lord is put to his Action upon the Case against the Wrongdoer.    

SECT. XI.  
Where the Act of the Lord, and what Act of his, shall dispense with a Forfeiture made by his Copyholder; where and what not.  

Proofs.  
A Copyholder commits Waste, and after 
Pasc. 5 Jac. Cro. 2. part, Mantlie and Willington's Case.  the Waste done, the Lord accepts of the Rent from the hands of the Copyholder. Quere if it shall bar him to enter for the Forfeiture. It is a Quere not Resolved.  
If Lands be demisable to two by Copy 
P. 5 Eliz. Moor 49.  for life successiuè, and the Custom of the Manor is, that they may not cut Trees: if the first of them cutteth down Trees, it is a Forfeiture both of the Estate of the present Tenant for life, and of the Estate of the other in Remainder over.  
If a Copyholder levies a Fine, makes a Feoffment, or suffers a common Recovery which destroys the Estate: in such case no Acceptance of the Rent, or Act done by the Lord, shall be available to make the Estate again good. But where the Custom of the Manor only is broken; as if the Copyholder makes a Lease of his Copy-hold-lands for more years than one year, or denies to pay his Rent, or denies to be sworn of the Homage, or commits Waste: there his Estate may be afterwards confirmed, and there and in such case the Acceptance of the Rent by the Lord will amount to a Confirmation of the first Estate.  
In some cases, where an Estate of a Copyholder is forfeited by Law, yet by Custom, and the Act of the Lord in his Court of the Manor, the Forfeiture may be mitigated, and the Land shall not be utterly forfeited or destroyed. As where the Custom is, That for Waste Copyhold shall be forfeited, a Custom for to amerce the Tenant for the Waste done, and to distrain for the Amercement, will be a good Custom to mitigate the Forfeiture of the Copyhold.  
The Custom of the Manor where Copy-hold-tenements 
17 Car. in B. R. thorn and Tyler's Case.  were demisable for lives was, That if any such Copyholder suffered his Message to be ruined for want of Repairing, or by committing of Waste, if the same was presented by the Homage, the Lord used to distrain the  as well of the Copyholder himself as of his Under-tenant levant and couchant upon the Lands for the said Amercement. It was objected, That the Custom was not good, for that it was an unreasonable Custom, that the Under-tenant should be punished for the offence of the Copyholder, for the Under-tenant is a Stranger to the Custom, and Customs should be taken strictly. But it was Resolved that the Custom was good: For by the Law, the suffering of the Copyhold Message to fall to ruin, or to be wasted, was a Forfeiture of the Copyhold, and the Custom did abridge and mitigate the Forfeiture, and the Under-tenant for a year was a Tenant to the Lord, and distrainable for the Rents and Services, and the Charge lies upon the Land, and not upon the person; and therefore it was Adjudged, That the Custom was good, and the Amercement lawful, and the Distress of the  of the Under-tenant levant upon the Land was lawful, all of them being by the Act of the Lord in his Court, and by the Custom of the Manor, in mitigation of the Forfeiture of the Land, and so for the good of the Copyholder.    

SECT. XII.  
Whether Copy-hold-lands be within the Statute of Westm. 2. and may be entailed, or not; and where and by what Acts the Issues in tail may be barred; and what shall be a Discontinuance of the Estate, what not.  
WHether Copy-hold-lands are within the Statute of West. 2. cap. 1. de Donis, etc. or may be entailed, hath been much controverted, and many Judgements and Resolutions have been on both sides; and it seemeth to be a Point not fully agreed upon at this day. I shall therefore make some little mention what hath been said on either side, and leave it to the judgement of others. And first for the Affirmative part, That Copy-holds are within the said Statute, and may be entailed, I shall begin with Mr. Littleton himself. Tenant by Copy of Court-Roll is, saith he, where there is a Custom in a Manor time out of mind used, that certain Tenants within the said Manor have used to have Lands and Tenements to them and their Heirs in Fee-simple or in Fee-tail: and in that Chapter he particularly sets forth the manner of Grants of such Estates, viz. Ad hanc Curiam venit A de B, & sursumreddidit in manus Domini, etc. unum Messuaglum, etc. ad usum C de D, & Haeredum suorum, vel Haeredum de corpore suo exeunt. Habendum sibi & Haeredibus de corpore suo exeunt. etc. By which it appeareth to be the opinion of Mr. Littleton, that an Estate may and might be of Copy-hold-lands. And herewith agreeth the opinion of Mr. Plowden in his Commentaries in Morgan and Manxell's Case. But note, that the opinion of Mr. Littleton is, That there must be a Custom of the Manor to enable such Estates of Copy-hold-lands.  
It is said in Coke 3. part, in Heydon's Case, That where an Act of Parliament doth alter the Service, Tenure or Interest of the Estate, either in prejudice of the Lord or of the Custom of the Manor, or in prejudice of the Tenants, there such an Act of Parliament doth not extend to Copy-holds. And therefore the Statute of Westm. 2. de Donis, because it extendeth to the Alteration of the Service and Tenure of the Land, and is prejudicial to the Lord of the Manor, doth not extend to Copy-holds. But in that Case it is agreed, That by a special Custom Lands might be entailed; for that it might be, that upon the creation of the Manors Lands were given by Lords of Manors to hold by their Tenants by particular Services and for particular Uses; viz. to some to them and their Heirs in Fee-simple, to some others to hold to them and the Heirs of their bodies begotten, and to some others for particular Estates, as for life, etc. and such Estates having continued in their Issues time out of mind, Custom hath now enabled such Estates to be of Copy-holds in tail: and although they have and enjoy such their Estates, be it either Fee-simple or Fee-tail, yet it is but secundùm Consuetudinem Manerii: and therefore and for these Reasons and causes, although that Copyhold be not or could not be entailed within the general words of the Statute de Donis, etc. yet by Custom time out of mind used, they say that Copy-holds may be entailed.  
36 Eliz. in the King's Bench, it was Adjudged, That where the Custom of the Manor was, that Lands might be granted unto any in Fee-simple, in such case a Grant of Lands unto a man and the Heirs of his body was within the Custom: For a Custom which extendeth to the greater will extend to the lesser Estate.  
Tenant in tail of a Copyhold surrendered 
M. 15 Jac. Lee and Brown's Case, Poph. 128.  the same into the hands of the Lord, to the Use of I S, etc. In that Case 2 Questions did arise. 1. If Copy-holds were within the Statute de Donis, etc. 2. Whether the Tail might be cut off by a Surrender. The Court doubted of the first Point; but the better opinion seemed to be, That the Statute co-operating with the Custom, they might be entailed.  
A Copyholder had Issue 3 Sons, A, 
H. 31 Eliz. B. R. Bullein and Graun●'s Case, Leon. 1. part, 174.  B, and C, and surrendered his Copy-hold-lands to the Use of his last Will, and thereby declared the same to be to the Use of his Wife for life, the Remainder to B his second Son in tail, and afterwards to A in Fee. It was a Question in this Case, if B had a Fee-simple conditional in the Lands, or an Estate-tail. For if a conditional Fee, than a Remainder over of it could not be limited. It was the opinion of Wray Chief Justice, That it was an Estate-tail in B, and not a Fee conditional, and that Customary Lands might be granted in tail.  
A Surrender of Copy-hold-lands was 
H. 34 Eliz. B. R. rot. 29●● Stanton and Barney's Case.  made within the Manor of Stevenson, to the Use of I S and the Heirs of his body; and after Issue, he surrendered the Lands unto another. It was agreed by all the Justices, That it was a Fee-simple conditional at the Common Law, and after Issue that he might alien the Lands.  
A Copyholder in Fee of the Manor 
M. 36 Eliz. B. R. Gravenor and Brook's Case, Poph. 34.  of Fairchilds and Preachers, 3 H. 8. surrendered his Copy-hold-lands to the Use of his eldest Daughter for life, the Remainder to the eldest Son of the said Daughter and the Heirs-males of his body, the Remainder to the right Heirs of A the Copyholder in Fee. In this Case it was said, That an Estate in Tail could not be of Copy-hold-lands. It was the opinion of Fenner and Popham, That by Equity of the Statute de Donis an Estate-tail might be of Copy-hold-lands, though not otherwise.  
Now on the other side, That Copy-hold-lands cannot be entailed, nor are within the Statute de Donis, etc. see these Cases and Resolutions following.  
H. 35 Eliz. in Co. B. it was Resolved by all the Justices, that Copy-holds were 
H. 35 Eliz. in Co. B. Pitts and Huckley's Case.  not within the Statute of Westm. 2. de Donis: For if they were within that Statute, than the Lord should not enter nor take advantage of the Forfeiture of the Copyhold for Felony, (the contrary of which was Resolved in Borneford and Sir John Packington's Case) but the Donor, and the Services should be done to the Donor, and not to the Lord of the Manor; which is against the nature of a Copy-hold-Tenure.  
The Case was, That a Copyholder 
Tr. 18 Jac. in Co. B. Royden and Moulster's Case, Cro. 3. part, 32, 33. Godb. 367. acc.  surrendered to the Use of one in Tail, there being no Custom to warrant such Surrender. In this Case the Question was, whether a Copyhold might be entailed within the Statute de Donis. It was holden by all the Justices, That it could not be entailed within the Statute, and that for divers causes. 1. Because it is not within the Letter of the Statute, which speaks only the Tenement is per Chartam datis: and Copy-holds cannot pass by Deed, but by Surrender only, as is agreed on all sides. 2. Because they are not within the meaning of the Statute, because that before 7 E. 4. 19 they were not of any account in Law, being only Estates at will of the Lord secundùm Consuetudinem Manerii. 3. Because the said Statute de Donis provides only against those who might make Disinherison by Fine or Recovery, which a Copyholder there could not do or make, because that then upon such Grants in Tail the Reversion should be left in themselves, which could not be, being to the prejudice of the Lord of the Manor. And also 4. because it would be very mischievous, because then there should be no means to dock or cut off such Entails, (common Recoveries and Fines not being then in use) unless there were a special Custom to that purpose.  
Having thus declared and made mention of the several Cases and Resolutions in this much-controverted Point, Whether Copyhold may be entailed within the said Statute de Donis, etc. I shall not deliver any absolute opinion upon the same, although I do much incline to the Affirmative part, being chief led thereunto by the opinion of Mr. Littleton, and by the Resolution in Manxell's Case, and of my Lord Coke in Heydon's Case, and a late Resolution in the said Point, 42 Eliz. in Erish and Rives Case, where it was adjudged in the Court of Common Pleas, upon an Evidence given in a Case of Copy-hold-lands within the Manor of Istleworth-Sion in the County of Middlesex; where it was Resolved, That no Estate-tail could be of a Copyhold without a particular Custom to warrant the same: but if there was such a particular Custom within the Manor to warrant such Estates, then by the Custom co-operating with the Statute (as before is expressed) Copy-hold-lands might be well entailed within the said Statute.  
Admitting then that by an especial Custom of the Manor Lands may be entailed; the next matter to be considered of is, By what and whose Acts the said Estate shall be either discontinued or barred, and what shall amount to a Discontinuance or a Bar to the Issue in Tail of such Estate.  
In 13 R. 2. sits. Judgement 7. it is 
13 R. 2. sits. Judgement 7.  said, That the Heir who is inheritable to the Copy-lands by Custom may recover the same by Plaint in the Court of the Lord in the nature of an Assize of Mort-dauncestor, but he shall not have an 
15 H. 8. Tenant by Copy 24.  Assize of Novel Disscisin: And 15 H. 8. Tenant by Copy 24. The Heir of a Copyholder Tenant in Tail shall recover the Lands in a Formedon in the Discender.  
The Custom of a Manor was, That Plaints in the Court of the Lord of the Manor have used to be in real Actions. A Recovery was by Plaint in the nature of a real Action against a Copyholder being Tenant in Tail, and a Recovery thereupon had. It was holden in that Case, That the said Recovery shall be a Discontinuance to take away the Entry of the Heir in Tail, because such Plaints are warranted by the Custom, and it is an Incident which the Law annexeth to the Custom, That a Recovery shall be a Discontinuance. But vide Tr. 36 Eliz. in B. R. in Deal and 
36 Eliz. B. R. Deal and Rigden's Case, Moor 358.  Rigden's Case. If it had been a Surrender in Court, it had been no Discontinuance.  
In 27 Eliz. in a Case concerning the 
M. 9 Car. in Co. B. Hill and Vpchurche's Case, Brownloe 121.  Manor of Northhall in the County of Essex, That if Copy-hold-lands might be entailed within the Statute of Westm. 2. then a Custom of a Surrender of it should be a Bar or a Discontinuance of such Estate; for as the Estate might be created by Custom, so it might be discontinued by a Surrender by Custom. And Tr. 38 Eliz. Field and Eliot's Case, A Surrender by Tenant in Tail of a Copyholder in Fee makes a Discontinuance of it. But yet notwithstanding those Authorities and Cases, I do conceive that a Surrender is no Discontinuance of a Copy-hold-estate in Tail.  
If a man be seized of a Copyhold in 
H. 30 Eliz. B. R. Right and Footeman's Case, Leon. 1. part, 95.  the right of his Wife, or be Tenant in Tail of a Copyhold, and he doth surrender to the Use of another in Fee: It was holden in that Case, That the same doth not make any Discontinuance of the Estate of the Wife or of the Estate-tail, but that the Wife or the Issue in Tail may respectively enter into and upon the Land. And according to this it was adjudged in Gravenor and Brook's Case before mentioned in 36 Eliz.  
Copy-hold-lands were entailed, and 
37 Eliz. in C. B. Lane and Hill's Case.  the Copyholder surrendered the said Lands to the Use of another man in Tail with divers Remainders over, and then he died. It was said in this Case, That it was no Discontinuance of the Tail, but the Issue in Tail, notwithstanding the Surrender, might enter. But it was said in that Case, That if it were a Discontinuance, that in such case a Formedon in the Reverter did not lie by the Tenant in Tail, because when a Copyholder makes a Gift in Tail, he hath no Reversion, but a Possibility; and the Lord shall avow upon the Donee for the Rents and Services, and not upon the Donor.  
In Trespass it was adjudged, That a 
H. 1 Jac. Oldcat●'s Case, Moor 753.  Surrender by Tenant in Tail of a Copyhold was not any Discontinuance of it, no more than a Surrender by Tenant for life to another in Fee was a Forfeiture.  
If an Enfant Tenant in Tail surrendreth 
H. 35 Eliz. Goals and Grans Case adjudge; acc▪  his Copy-hold-lands to the Use of a Stranger, who is admitted; the Enfant may enter at his full age, because it was not a Bar nor a Discontinuance.  
It is not to be disputed or questioned whether a Common Recovery of Lands at the Common Law with Vourcher over and Warranty be a Bar of Lands entailed: It is universally received by all Learned in the Laws of the Realm to be a Bar of such an Estate, and the Inheritances of a great many persons of Quality and others do depend upon such Common Recoveries had and suffered. But then the Question hath been, whether a Common Recovery had and suffered in the Court of the Lord of the Manor shall be a Bar of an Estate of Copy-hold-lands entailed: and for that, it will stand upon this difference, Where the Custom of the Manor hath always been, that such a Recovery there had shall be a Bar, where not. For without a special Custom, I do conceive that by a Recovery had and suffered in the Court of the Lord of the Manor an Estate-tail of Copy-hold-lands cannot be barred: But where such a Custom is or hath been out of mind used, there I conceive that a common Recovery had and suffered in the Court of the Manor will bar an Estate in Tail of Copy-hold-lands. I shall only put you two Judgements and Resolutions to make good this difference, although many others may be alleged.  
Upon a special Verdict in an Action 
P. 37 Eliz. in B. R. Clun and Pease's Case, Cro. 1. part.  of: Trespass it was found, That the Lands were Copyhold demisable in Tail, with the Remainder over in Tail: That Tenant in Tail in possession suffered a Common Recovery with Voucher in the Court of the Manor of these Lands, and afterwards died: But there was not any Custom found for suffering Recovery of such Lands in the Court of the said Manor. It was holden by the whole Court in that Case, That the Recovery should not bind the Tail but upon a Recompense in value, and in that case the Issue could not have Land in value: Also the Lord should lose his Fine, and the party to whose Use the Recovery was had should hold the Lands without Admittance or Grant from the Lord, which is contrary to the nature of a Copyhold.  
The other Case was this. Land was 
M. 37 Eliz. in B. R. Eylett and Lane's Case, Cro. 1. part.  demisable in Tail by Custom: A Copyholder demised the Land in Tail by Copy: The Copyholder suffered a Common Recovery in the Court of the Manor with Vourcher and Warranty. The Court at the first doubted of it, because a Warranty could not be annexed to such an Estate in Tail. But yet afterwards it was Resolved, That the Recovery there was a Bar of the Tail. And Note, for a Conclusion of this Point, That at this day, by the Customs of several Manors, Common Recoveries are had and suffered in the Courts of Lords of Manors for the docking and barring of Estate tails of Copy-holds. And much inconvenience would ensue, both if Copy-holds at this day might not by Custom be entailed, and likewise if by Custom Common Recoveries had of Estate-tails with Vourcher over in the Courts of Lords of Manors should not thereby be docked and barred.   

SECT. XIII.  
What things are incident to a Copyholder, and what he may take of common right without the Grant or Licence of the Lord: And what Acts upon the Land shall bind the Copyholder, what not.  
IF a Copyholder according to the Custom doth surrender into the hands of 2 Tenants to the Use of I S and his Heirs, and afterwards the Copyholder dieth before the Presentment be made of the Surrender by the Tenants, and the Lord before the Presentment accepts of the Rent of I S generally, but not as a Copyholder: the Heir of the Surrenderor may e●ter into and upon the Lands, and receive the Profits thereof to his own use, for that nothing vesteth in the Surrenderee before Admittance, and the Inheritance of the Copyhold is in the Heir quasi by Descent.  
To have Common in the Wastes of 
Pasch. 45 Eliz. adjudge. acc.  the Lord is not a thing incident to his Copyhold, but is by Prescription or Custom of the Manor. If therefore a Copyholder purchaseth the Inheritance of the Land, the Interest of the Common being a thing entire is gone and determined. But if the Copyholder doth surrender part of his Copy-hold-lands to the Use of another, who is admitted, yet his whole Common is not thereby determined, but he shall have Common still for the Lands not surrendered.  
A Copyholder may take House-bote, 
9 H. 4. ● Waste 59 Coke select Cases 68  Hedgbote and Plough-bote upon his Copy-hold-lands of common right, as a thing incident to the Grant, if it be not restrained by a Custom, that the Copyholder shall not take it but by Assignment of the Lord or his Bailiff. And if the Lord, where the Tenant hath such Botes, cuts down all the Woods and Underwoods which are standing and growing upon the Lands, to prevent the Copyholder of his Botes, he may have an Action of Trespass against the Lord, as it was Resolved in Heydon and Smith's Case, Pasch. 8 Jac. in Co. B.  
A Manor may be Copyhold, and holden 
M. 8 Jac. B. R. The King and Stafferton's Case, Yelv. 190, 191.  of another Manor by Copy of Court-Roll: and if such a Copy-hold-Manor be granted unto I S and his Heirs, I S may hold a Copy-Court within his said Manor without a special Grant of it; for that of common right a Court-Baron or a Copyhold Court is incident to every Manor.  
A Lord of a Manor grants a Copyhold 
P. 26 Eliz. C. B. Chaw and Dover's Case, Leon. 1. part, 16.  for ● Lives, and afterwards takes a Wife: The 3 Lives end 〈◊〉 determine: The Lord enters into the Manor; and keeps the Copy-hold-lands in his hands for a time, and then grants the Lands over again by Copy, and dieth: The Wife of the Lord enters, and clums Dower in it. In this Case it was Resolved, That the Copyholder should hold the Lands discharged of the Dower, because the Copyholder comes and is in the Lands by the Custom, which is paramount to the title of Dower.  
A Copyholder is feised of Lands at 
P. 5 Eliz. by Dyer. V●de Moor 50.  Common Law, and also of Lands holden by Copy of Court-Roll, and he by Indenture, without Licence of the Lord, makes one Lease of both Lands, rendering Rent. It was said by Dyer, That in such case the whole Rent is issuing out of the Lands at Common Law, because the Lease as to the Copy-hold-lands was utterly void.  
If the Lord grants to his Copyholder 
P. 12 Eliz. in B. R. Moor 94.  the Trees growing upon the Lands, and which shall after grow, with liberty to cut them down and carry them away; he may justify the cutting of the Trees which are growing, and it shall not be a Forfeiture of his Copyhold, because the Lord hath by his Grant dispensed with it: But he cannot cut down the Trees which shall there after grow, as it was said by Plowden and Popham.  
If a Copyholder binds himself in a 
Pasc. 12 Eliz. in B. R. adjudge. acc.  Statute, his Copy-hold-lands shall not be extended upon the said Statute, because the Copyholder in the eye of the Law hath an Estate but ad voluntatem Domini secundùm Consuetudinem Manerii: But if a man be Tenant for life or years of a Manor, and a Copyhold comes to his hands by Forfeiture or other determination, and he binds himself in a Statute; although the Copyhold be after granted, yet it may be extended upon the Statute, because the Copyhold was annexed to the , and joined with it in the hands of the Lord, when the Statute was acknowledged and entered into.  
The Custom of a Manor was, That a Copyholder might cut and lop Trees 
M. 5 Jac. Swain and Beckett's Case, Moor 812.  for Hedgbote and other necessaries: The Queen made a Lease of the Manor to I S, with Exception of Trees: King James granted the Reversion to I D in Fee: The Assignees of the Term granted a Copyhold to other for 3 Lives, Habendum to them successiué: The Copyholder cut Trees. It was Resolved, That the Copyholder was in by the Custom paramount the Exception, although he took his Estate after the Exception, and therefore might justify the cutting of the Trees for the Hedg-b●●e and other necessaries.  
The Husband seized in Fee of Copy-hold-lands 
35 Eliz. Co. 4. part, Bullock and Dibles' Case.  in the right of his Wife surrendered the same to another, who was admitted, and afterwards the Husband died. It was Adjudged that in this case the Wife might enter, and she should not be put to her Cui in vita.  
If there be Lessee for life, the Remainder 
M. 9 Jac. in Co. B. adjudge. acc.  for life, of a Copyhold, and the first Tenant for life doth purchase the Freehold of the Copyhold, and levies a Fine thereof, and 5 years pass: it was Adjudged, That this Fine should bar him in the Remainder of his Copyhold.   

SECT. XIV.  
Where the Lord of the Manor shall be Chancellor in his own Court, to determine the Differences which arise betwixt Copy-holders'.  
A Copyholder doth surrender his Copy-hold-lands 
H. 25 Eliz. in B. R. Leon. 1. part, 2.  to A, to hold the Lands till he hath levied the sum of 100 l. upon trust that afterwards he shall surrender to the Use of B: A levies the money, and being required to make the surrender to B, he refuseth to do it; whereupon B exhibits his Bill to the Lord in the Court of the Manor: The Lord there makes a Decree, that A make the Surrender to B, which he again refuseth to do; and thereupon the Lord seizeth the Lands, and afterwards admits B to the same. It was the opinion of the whole Court in this Case, That both the Seizure of the Lord and his Admittance of B were lawful, because the Lord in such Cases of Equity to execute Trusts is Chancellor in his own Court.  
If a false Judgement be given in a 
Vid. 14 H. 4. 34.  Court-Baron by the Steward against a Copyholder, the Copyholder in such case shall not have either a Writ of Error or a Writ of False Judgement; but he may sue in the Court of the Lord by Bill, to be relieved against such Judgement; and the Lord, as Chancellor, may give him Relief therein, and shall restore the Land to the party upon the false Judgement given by the Steward, and Restitution made to the Copyholder.   

SECT. XV.  
Of Surrenders upon Conditions; and where such Surrenders shall be good, where not.  

Proofs.  
A Copyholder in Fee surrendered out 
P. 31 Eliz. Co. 4. part, Kite and Queinton's Case.  of Court his Copy-hold-lands to the Use of another and his Heirs upon Condition: At the next Court the Surrender was presented, but in the Presentment the Condition was omitted: He to whose Use the Surrender was made being dead, the Lord admitted his Heir. It was Resolved in this Case, That the Presentment of the Surrender was void, because it was not made in such manner as the Surrender was made. But if the Conditional Surrender had been presented, it had beed good, although it was not entered into the Court-Roll.  
A Copyholder surrendered his Copyhold 
Tr. 2 Jac. B. R. Cro. 2. part, Hall & Shardbrook's Case.  upon Condition, and afterwards by Deed he released the Condition. Resolved it was good without a Surrender, for that a Condition or a Right cannot properly be said to be determined by a Surrender, but it may be by a Release.  
The Case was; Grandfather, Father, 
M. 15 E. 3. 13.  and Son: The Grandfather died: The Father assigned Dower to the Grandmother, being his Mother, who surrendered it back to the Father paying 10 l. per annum: The Father died; his Wife brought Dower against the Son and recovered, because the Father had the Fee and Freehold conjoined in the life of the Grandmother by the Surrender. It was Resolved in this Case, That when the Wife of the Father doth recover Dower, she shall pay to the Grandmother so much Rend as doth belong to her proportion in Dower. And in this Case it was holden, That although the Estate of a man be Conditional and defeasible upon a bad Title; yet the Wife shall not be ousted of her Dower until the Conditional or defeasible Title be defeated. And where Husband and Wife are Tenants for life, and surrender to him in the Reversion, the Wife of him in the Reversion shall be endowed, and yet the Surrender is but Conditional; for if the Wife of the Tenant for life overliveth her Husband, the Surrender is defeasible: à fortiori in case where it is not defeasible, as in this Case. And it was said in case of a Surrender of Copy-hold-land, where it was Conditional, the Wife is dowable of it, if the Condition do not determine the Estate in the life-time of the Husband: But a Feme is not dowable of Copyhold but by Custom of the Manor. 
H. 27 Eliz. Cro. 3. part, 68 Bright and Hubbard's Case.   
A Copyholder devised his Lands to his Wife for life, and that she should sell the Lands for the payment of his Debts; and surrendered to the Use of his Will: The Copyholder died: His Wife surrendered the Land upon Condition to pay 12 l. It was Adjudged, It was a good Surrender upon the Condition, and that it was a good Sale made by her.  
The Father, Copyholder in Fee, surrendered 
Tr. 33 Eliz. Cro. 1. part, Symonds and Lawn●'s Case.  his Copy-hold-lands to the Use of his Son in Fee, upon Condition to perform Covenants in an Indenture: The Son after Admittance surrendered to I S upon Condition that if the Son pay 10 l. the Surrender to be void: The Son neither pays the 10 l. nor performs the Covenants in the Indenture: The Father enters. Resolved, That by the Entry of the Father both the Surrenders were avoided, and there the Son might well enter after the death of his Father, and the Surrender made by him to I S.  
If a Copyholder doth surrender his 
33 Eliz. Co. 4. part, Westwick's Case.  Lands to the Use of I S and his Heirs absolutely, and the Lord admits the Tenant upon Condition, it is void; for that after Admittance the Tenant is in by him who made the Surrender, & not by the Lord.  
The Custom was, That a Copyholder might out of Court surrender to the 
Tr. 28 Eliz. in B. R. Cro. 1. part, 〈◊〉 dett's Case.  Use of a Stranger in Fee: The Lord of the Manor made I his Steward ad exequendum per se, or his sufficient Deputy, who made A his Deputy pro hac vice to take a Surrender of Husband and Wife, the Remainder in Fee: The Deputation was farther, viz. Et ulteriùs faciendum quantum in me est: A took a Surrender of the Husband and Wife upon Condition, which Condition was afterwards performed and executed. Resolved in this Case, That although the authority to take the Surrender was absolute, and to be without a Condition; yet when A took it upon a Condition to be performed, it was a good Surrender made to him, by reason of the words in the Deputation, Et ulteriùs faciendum, etc.  
A Woman Copyholder durante Viduitate 
P. 39 Eliz. B. R. Oland and Barwick's Case, Cro. 1. part, acc.  sowed the Land, and before Severance of the Corn she took Husband. Resolved, That although the Estate of the Wife was incertain, and determined by the Limitation, and not by any Condition either in Fact or in Law, that the Lord should have the Corn sowed upon the Lands.  
A Copyholder in Fee of Lands discendable in Borough-English had 3 Sons, 
H. 2 Jac. B. R. Cro. 2. part, Curtsies and Wolverston's Case.  and surrendered to the Use of his Will, and thereby devised his Lands to his middle Son in Fee, upon Condition to pay to his 4 Daughters, to every of them 20 l. at their full age: The eldest Son had Issue 2 Daughters, and died: The middle Son is admitted, and doth not pay the Daughters their Sums at their full ages: The youngest Son entered in the name of the Daughters, who disagreed to it. It was Resolved, That it was a Condition, but not broken without demand of their Sums at their full ages; and when they disagreed to the Entry, the Entry of the youngest Brother was not lawful.  
A Copyholder surrendered his Lands 
M. 13 Jac. B. R. Simpson and Sothern's Case, Cro. 2. part.  into the hands of the Lord, Habendum after his death to the Use of an Enfant en ventre sa Mier. Resolved that a Surrender to an Enfant en ventre sa Mier was not good as an immediate Surrender, for that it cannot begin at a day to come. And whereas a Remainder was thereupon limited over, it was holden to be void, because it was to begin upon a Condition precedent, (Vid. the Condition) which was never performed; and therefore the Surrender into the hands of the Lord was void, because he takes it but as an Instrument to convey it over.    

SECT. XVI.  
Where Custom which warrants the Lord or his Copyholder to grant greater Estates, warrants the Grants of lesser Estates.  

Proofs.  
THE Custom of a Manor is, That 
36 Eliz. Co. 4. part, Gravenor and Tedd's Case.  a Copy-hold-estate may be granted in Fee-simple. In that Case it was adjudged, That an Estate thereof granted to one and the Heirs of his body is good, and within the Custom; for Ubi licet quod est majus, non debet quod est minus non licere.  
The Custom of a Manor is, That 
39 Eliz. in B. R. Downs and Hopkins Case.  Copy-hold-estates may be granted for life or lives: In such case a Grant is made to a Woman durante Viduitate suâ: And it was adjudged good, and within the Custom, for that every Grant for life is durante Viduitate; but every Grant durante Viduitate is not for life.  
The Custom of a Manor out of mind 
H. 34 Eliz. B. R. Stanton and Barney's Case.  used was, To grant certain Lands, parcel of the said Manor, in Fee-simple, and never any Grant was made to any and the Heirs of his body for life or for years: The Lord of the Manor did make a Grant by Copy to one for life, the Remainder over to another and the Heirs of his body. It was adjudged, That the Grant and the Remainder over was good; for the Lord having an Authority by Custom, and an Interest withal, might grant any lesser Estate: but otherwise it is where one hath but a bare Authority.  
In Trespass the Issue was, if the Lord 
P. 29 Eliz. C. B. Kempe and Carter's Case, Leon. 1. part, 56.  of the Manor granted the Lands per Copiam Rotulorum Curiae Manerii secundùm Consuetudinem Manerii praedict. It was given in Evidence, that the Lord of late at his Court granted the Lands per Copiam Curiae, where it was never granted by Copy before. In that case the Jury are bound to find quòd Dominus non concessit, as it was holden by the Court. For although de facto Dominus concessit per Copiam Rotulorum Curiae, yet non concessit secundùm Consuetudinem Manerii praedict. But in that Case it was holden, If Customary Lands had been grantable in Fee, if the same Land escheat to the Lord, and he grant the same to another for life, it is a good Grant, and warranted by the Custom; for the Custom which enables him to grant in Fee shall enable him to grant for life.  
If a Copy-hold-estate fall into the 
M. 15 & 16 Eliz. in Co. B. adjudge. acc.  hands of the Lord by Escheat, Forfeiture, or the like, and the Lord make a Lease thereof for years or life by Deed or without Deed, or if he make a Feoffment of it upon Condition, or if the Copyhold so escheated, etc. be extended upon a Statute or a Recognizance, or the same Land be assigned to the Wife of the Lord in Dower; In all these cases the Land can never be granted again by Copy, because after such Disposition thereof it was not demiseable. But if the Interruptions were not lawful, but tortuous, as if the Lord be disseised, or if the Land be recovered against the Lord by a false Verdict, or by an erroneous Judgement; yet after the Land is recontinued, and the Interruption which was wrongful removed, the Land is grantable again by the Lord by Copy.    

SECT. XVII.  
Who shall be said such a Lord of a Manor as may grant Copy-hold-estates; and how long such Estates shall continue; and what persons shall be capable of Copy-hold-estates, what not; and what may be granted by Copy.  
EVery one who hath a lawful Estate 
Coke 1. part, Instit. 58.  or Interest in the Manor, be it Fee, Fee-tail, Dower, Tenantry by the courtesy of England, Tenantry for life or years, Guardian, Tenant by Statute-Merchant or Elegit, are sufficient Lords and persons to grant Copy-hold-estates to others. And in some special case Estates in Copy-hold-lands may be granted by such a one who hath no Estate or Interest in the Manor.  

Proofs.  
A Guardian in Socage held a Copy-Court 
Tr. 1 Jac. B. R. Soapland and Ridler's Case, Owen 115.  in his own name, and granted Copies in Reversion. Adjudged he was Dominus pro tempore, and had an Interest in the Lands; for he might make a Lease thereof in his own name, and therefore he might both grant Copies, and also admit Copy-holders' to Estates before granted. But the Bailiff of a Manor hath no Interest in the Manor, and therefore he cannot grant Copies of the Land holden of the Manor.  
The Custom of a Manor was, That 
P. 41 Eliz. B. R. Ga● and Kay's Case, Cro. 1. part.  Dominus pro tempore might make a Demise for 2 or 3 Lives in Possession or Reversion: A Woman Tenant in Dower for life of the Manor granted a Copyhold to I S and 2 others for their Lives, Habendum post mortem of A B, and died: A B died. It was holden by the Court in this Case, That the Grant was good in Reversion, although it was not executed in the life of the Tenant in Dower: And Vide, That the Lord of a Manor for life, or any other particular Estate, having Interest in the Manor, might grant Copies in Reversion of Lands which are holden by Copy of Court-Roll, although the Grants were not executed in the life of the Grantors; as it was adjudged in Sir 
H. 14 Eliz. the Earl of Oxford's Case, Moor 95.  Peter Carew's Case. Quere: for Hil. 14 Eliz. in the Earl of Oxford's Case in Moor 95. it is not good, unless it come in Possession during the life of the Grantor.  
Note, It was holden by the Justices 
P. 15 Car. C. B. Godb. 6. acc.  P. 15 Jac. in Co. B. That there ought to be a Custom to enable the Lord of the Manor to make a Grant of a Copyhold in Reversion.  
Generally, Things which lie not in Tenure, as Advowsons' in gross, Commons in gross, or the like incorporate Inheritances, out of which a Rent cannot be reserved, cannot be granted by Copy of Court-Roll by the Lord of the Manor; nor can they be holden by any Service to be done for them. But Advowsons' appendants, Commons appendants, and such things as are parcel of a Manor, and which have Continuance, may be granted by the Lord of the Manor, to be holden by Copies of Court-Roll, according to the Custom of the Manor.  
In Trespass for cutting down of Underwoods, 
M. 38 Eliz. B. R. Cro. 1. part, Ho and Taylor's Case.  the Question was, Whether Underwoods might be granted by Copy of Court-Roll, for that by such Grant or Lease the Soil passeth not. But it was Resolved, That Underwoods are a thing of Inheritance and perpetuity, which may have Continuance for ever; for after they are once cut, they will grow again ex stipitibus, and so they may be well granted by Copy.  
In Trover and Conversion of 20 Loads 
P. 43 Eliz. B. R. Sands and Darcie's Case, Cro. 1. part, acc.  of Tith-Hay, the only Question was, Whether Tithes were grantable by Copy. It was objected they were not, because it is against the nature of Tithes, and none could have a property in them before the Council of Lateran, and therefore it was impossible to have any Custom so to grant them. But it was Resolved, That they might be granted by Copy, if there had been a Custom time out of mind so to grant them.  
One Manor may be holden of another 
39 H. 6. 9 b. Vid. M. 11 Jac. Moor and Goodgreave's Case, Cro. 2. part. Coke 11. part, Sir Henry Nevil's Case. M. 37 Eliz. B. R. Sir John Bourn's Case, acc.  Manor, and may be demiseable by Copy of Court-Roll, and there may be Customary Tenants, according to the Custom of the Manor; and so it was said, That a Market or a Fair, although they are things of Privilege and Liberty only, yet because they might be appendent unto or parcel of a Manor, or used with a Manor and Lands, that an Estate might be granted of them by Copy of Court-Roll.    

SECT. XVIII.  
What Acts or things are inseparable, and must be done by the Copyholder himself; and what acts and where may be done by his Attorney.  
A Copyholder, notwithstanding that generally and according to the Custom of the Manor he hath an Estate of Inheritance in his Copy-hold-lands, viz. secundùm Consuetudinem Manerii; yet it hath this Qualification, that it is ad voluntatem Domini: and in that respect, upon the Original Grants of such Estates, the Lords of Manors did reserve unto themselves certain Duties and Services and Suits to be done by their Copy-holders'; some of which were so inseparable to the person of the Copyholder, that they could not be done by any other person; others were such as concerned and had respect both to the Lord for his good, and the good of the Manor, as those which concerned the particular good of the Copy-holders' themselves, or the Lands which they held of the Lord.  
The principal Duty inseparably to be done to the person of the Lord, and by his Copyholder, is his doing of Fealty, 
Co. 9 part, in Comb's Case.  which upon every Admittance he is to do to the Lord, for that is especially mentioned in the Copy granted by the Lord in these words, viz. Dat. Domino pro Fine, & fecit Domino fidelitatem: and Fealty cannot be done but in person, and not by an Attorney. And although (as Mr. Littleton saith) Fealty may be taken by the Steward of the Court of the Lord of the Manor, yet it is done to the Lord himself, and it must be done by the Copyholder himself in person.  
A Copyholder may take an Estate in the Copyhold by the Surrender of another Copyholder into the hands of two Tenants of the Manor by Custom, (as before is declared.) But then this Surrender must be presented in Court, and he to whose Use the Surrender was made must personally appear in Court, and be there admitted to the Land; and he cannot be admitted by Attorney.  
The Suit and Service which is to be done in the Court of the Lord by his Copyholder must be done in person, and not by another for him; and it is to be done upon his Oath, and a man cannot swear by Attorney; and therefore he cannot make an Attorney to do his Suit and Service, but the same must be done by him in person.  
Again, If a Copyholder, upon Notice given him of the special day of holding the Lord's Court, and being summoned to appear and to do his Suit and Service, shall wilfully neglect, or refuse to appear and do his Suit, it is a Forfeiture of his Copyhold: and therefore such Suits and Services cannot be done by Attorney, but in proper person.  
A Copyholder of a Manor of the Earl 
Tr. 28 Eliz. in B. R. the Earl of Arundel's Case, Leon. 1. part, 36.  of Arundel did surrender his Lands to the Use of his Will, and thereby devised them to his youngest Son and his Heirs, who being in Prison made a Letter of Attorney to I D, to pray to be admitted to the Land for his Use, and after such Admittance to surrender the same Lands to the Use of I S and his Heirs, to whom he had sold it for the payment of his Debts, who came into Court accordingly, and prayed to be admitted, and make a Surrender of the Land to I S; all which was done. In this Case it was Resolved by the Justices, That it was no good Admittance, nor no good Surrender; for that the Heir ought to have come himself in person in Court to take up his Land, and afterwards to surrender it, or otherwise have procured the Lord to appoint his Steward to have gone to the Prison unto him to have been admitted, and afterwards to have surrendered the Lands.  
Some particular things a Copyholder may do by his Attorney; as he may pay his Rent by his Servant or Attorney, or tender it by them; and such Payment and Tender shall be good. So if the Custom of the Manor be, That upon the death of every Copyholder the Tenant shall pay and render his best Beast unto the Lord for a Heriot, there the Heriot may be paid by the Heir before his Admittance, or by the Executor of the Copyholder; and such Payment or Tender of it shall be good.  
So by an especial Custom within the Manor a Copyholder may appoint or 
M. 5 Jac. in B. R. Bale's Case.  nominate, in the presence of two Tenants of the Manor or other two sufficient Witnesses, who shall have his Copy-hold-lands after his decease, and also that they may appoint what Fine the Lord shall have for the Admittance of the Tenant, so it be a reasonable Fine; and such Disposition of his Lands and appointment of Fine shall be good by the Custom: But yet after such Disposition made, the party who is to have the Land must in person come into the Lord's Court, and pray to be admitted unto the same. And so was it very lately adjudged in the Court of Common Pleas, both for the Point of the Custom, that it was a good Custom, and Admittance.  
A Copyholder dwelling in a Town 
M. 3 Eliz. B. R. Sir John Braunche's Case, Leon. 1. part, 104.  long distant from the Manor, having Notice of the Court-day when it was to be holden, upon Summons appeared not himself, but appointed his Son his Attorney to appear and do the Services for him for his Copy-hold-lands. In this Case it was holden by the Court, That such a person so appointed might essoign the Copyholder, but not do the Services for him, for that none could do the same but the Tenant himself.   

SECT. XIX.  
What Customs within Copy-hold-Manors shall be said to be good and reasonable Customs, and what not.  
Custom is the very Soul and life of 
Coke 4. part, 21.  Copy-hold-estates; for without Custom, or if they break their Customs, they are at the Lord's will, for they hold their Lands ad voluntatem Domini, although (as before is said) it be secundùm Consuetudinem Manerii, etc. But then the Customs must be reasonable, and not unreasonable Customs.  
If the Lord doth challenge a Custom 
Coke 1. part Institut. 59  within his Manor, to have a Fine of every of his Copy-holders' of the said Manor at the Alteration or Change of the Lord of the Manor, be it by Alienation, Demise, Death, or otherwise; this is an unreasonable Custom, for by this means his Copy-holders' may be oppressed by the Lords by the payment of a multitude of Fines.  
A Custom within a Manor, That every 
Coke 5. part, Pennieman's Case.  Alienation of Lands within the Manor shall be presented at the next Court holden for the said Manor, upon pain that such Alienation shall be void, is a good and reasonable Custom; for it is but reasonable that the Lord should know who is his Tenant.  
A Copyholder alleged a Custom 
Pasch. 6 Jac. in Co. B. Glascock's Case. Vid. God Godb. acc.  within a Manor in Essex to be, That all the Tenants within the said Manor had used to cut down Trees, to repair their Copyhold and  Tenements within the said Manor, and also to sell their Trees at their pleasures. It was doubted if it was a good Custom: but the better opinion of the Court seemed to be that the Custom was good.  
The Custom of a Manor in Worcester-shire 
M. 6 Jac. in Co. B. Paginton and Hunt's Case.  was, That if any Copyholder committed Felony, and that the same be presented by 12 Homagers in the Lord's Court, the Tenant should forfeit his Copyhold. It was presented that I S, a Tenant of the said Manor, had committed Felony at such a time; but that at the Assizes next after he was acquitted of the same: After which the Lord seized the Lands. In this Case it was adjudged, That the Custom was not good, because in judgement of Law, before Conviction or Attainder he was not a Felon. But whether in that Case the Verdict and finding of the Jurors upon the Bill of Indictment agreeing with the finding of the Homagers, that the party had committed Felony, did entitle the Lord to the Copy-hold-lands, notwithstanding the Acquittal of the Jury which was afterwards, was not Resolved.  
A Copyholder did allege the Custom of the Manor to be, That the Lord might grant Copies in Remainder with the assent of the Tenants, and not otherwise, and that Copies otherwise granted in Remainder should be void. It was said, That this Custom might be good, for it might be so agreed and granted by the Lord at the beginning upon the Creation of the Manor; and that it seemed to be grounded upon the reason of the Common Law, That a Remainder 
M. 31 Eliz. Co. B. Godb. ●40.  should not be without the assent of the particular Tenant, and to commence with his Estate, and that therefore it was a good Custom. Quere the Case, for it was not Resolved, M. 31 Eliz. in Co. B.  
The Custom of a Manor was, That those who claimed Copy-holds by Descent ought to come at the first, second, or third Court, upon Proclamations made, to take up their Estates, or else they should 
H. 7 Jac. in Co. B. Copley's Case.  be forfeited. A Tenant of the Manor (having Issue inheritable by the Custom beyond the Sea) died: The Proclamations all passed, and the Heir did not return in two years; but upon his return he prayed to be admitted to the Copyhold, and proffered the Lord his Fine in Court, which the Lord refused to accept of, and to admit the Heir, but seized the Land as forfeited. It was adjudged in this Case, That it was no cause of Forfeiture, because the Heir was beyond the Seas at the time of the Proclamations, and the Lord was at no prejudice, for that, for any thing appeared in the Case, the Lord had taken all the Profits of the Land in the mean time.  
The Custom of a Manor was, That 
M. 7 Jac. in Co. B. by Dodderidge.  every Copyholder at his death should pay to the Lord his best Beast for a Heriot: A Feme-sole within the Manor Tenant for life took a Husband, and died. It was the opinion of Dodderidge in this Case, That although the Custom was good, yet, as this Case was, no Heriot should be paid, because the Wife had not any Goods, by Cattles to pay the same.  
A Custom of a Manor was said to be, 
M. 42 Eliz. B. R. Cro. 1. part, Parker and Combleford's Case.  That the Lord had used after the death of every one dying within his Manor to have the best Beast of such a person for a Heriot, and to seize and distrain for it. It was adjudged a void Custom, 
Vid. 3 & 4 Eliz. in Co. B. Wilson and Wise's Case, Moor, acc.  not good to bind a Stranger: but such a Custom to extend to and bind the Tenants of the Manor might be good.  
The Custom of a Manor was, Quòd 
Pasc. 24 Eliz. Moor. Vide Skipwith's Case, Tr. 33 Eliz. in Co. B. Godb. 143. where the contrary seemeth to be adjudged.  quilibet tenens per Copiam poterit dimittere terras suas for life, in Fee, or otherwise; and that a Woman Cooperta viro poterit devisare her Copy-hold-lands to any other, or to her Husband, by the assent of the Husband. In this Case the Court held, That the Custom was not unreasonable; but because it was poterit devisare, where it ought to have been alleged usi sunt devisare, for that cause it was said it was not good▪  
Note by the whole Court, That if the 
Pasc. 8 Jac. in Co. B. Rapley and Chaffyn's Case, acc.  Custom of a Manor is alleged to be, That the eldest Daughter shall solely inherit the Land, such a Custom may be good: But then such Custom shall be taken strictly▪ viz. That the eldest Sister shall not inherit the Land by force of the said Custom.  
It was Resolved by the Justices, That 
Vid. Moore's Rep. 3 E. 6.  a Custom that a Lessee for years may hold the Land for half a year after his Term ended, is no good Custom: But it was agreed, That the Lord of a Copyhold might by Custom lease the same for life and 40 years after, and that such a Custom was good.  
A Custom was alleged, That all Inhabitants 
Tr. 14 Jac. in Co. B. Harbin and Green's Case, Moor 887.  of certain Messages holden of the Bishop of S had used to grind their Corn which they used to spend in their Houses, or should sell, at certain Mills, called the Bishop's Mills in S, and not elsewhere, without the Licence of the Bishop. It was the opinion of the Justices, That it was a void and unreasonable Custom, to grind all their Corn there which they should sell, etc.  
The Custom of the Manor of Y in the 
P. 13 Jac. Ford and Ho●k●n's Case, Moor 842.  County of Dorset was, That every Copyholder might name who should have his Copyhold, and that the Lord ought to admit the Copyholder so named at the death of the Nominator. Quere if it be a good Custom, because the person nominated hath neither jus ad rem, nec in re, the Interest being in the Lord, and a man cannot gain an Interest to himself from the Lord against the will of the Lord. And therefore it was holden, That where the party in that case brought an Action against the Lord for denying to admit him to the Copyhold upon such Nomination, the Action would not lie. But Quere that Case as to the Custom, for that in 45 Eliz. in B. R. in powel 
45 Eliz. B. R. powel and Peacock's Case.  and Peacock's Case it was adjudged, That a Custom that a Copyholder in Fee might nominate his Successor, and so in perpetuum, was adjudged a good Custom. 
Vid. Hob. Reports 6, and 11. Brock and Spencer's Case.  And Vid. Brock and Spencer's Case in Hobart 6 and 11. a Custom that such a Copyholder in Fee might▪ fell Timber-trees was adjudged a good Custom.  
The Custom of a Manor was, That 
P. 41 Eliz. B. R. Parman and Bowyer's Case.  if any Tenant allowed his Lands holden of the Manor by Writing or Feoffment, or devised them, or surrendered them into 
Vid. the same Case in Anderson's 2. part, 125. where it seemeth the Custom was much doubed, if good, or ●ot.  the hands of the Lord of the Manor to the Use of another, that such Alienation, Feoffment, Devise or Surrender aught to be presented within one Year next after. It was said, It was no good Custom. But the Court ruled the Custom to be good and agreeable to the Law; for that it is reason that the Lord should know, etc. Tant. Vid. before.  
A Custom was, That a Copyholder 
Vid. Willis and Bucknall's Case, in B. R. Style's Reports, 311.  of Inheritance might make a Letter of Attorney to two joint-tenants, and severally, to surrender his Copy-hold-lands in Fee to certain Uses after his death. It was Resolved, That the Custom was a void Custom, because by the death of the Copyholder the Lands were settled in the Heir, and an Authority given to divest him was not good.  
The Custom of a Manor was, That 
M. 21 Jac. Cro. 2. part▪ Page's Case.  the Land was devisable by Custom for 21 years, paying the triple value of the Rent, and if the Lessee died, that the Term should be to his Heirs, paying for a Fine one year's Rend, and if he assigned it, the Assignee to have it for one year's value of the Rent, and that he might renew the Devise for 3 years' value. The Court held all the said Customs to be good and reasonable.  
The Custom of a Manor was, That if 
P. 17 Car. in B. R. thorn and Tyler's Case.  any Copy-hold-tenant did suffer his Message to be ruined for want of Reparations, and the same be presented in Court by the Homage, that such a Tenant should be amerced, and that the Lord had used to distrain the Beasts as well of the Under-tenant as of the Tenant himself, which were levant and couchant upon the Lands, for such Amercement. It was said, That the Custom was not good, but unreasonable, to distrain a Stranger's , such as the Under-tenant was. But it was Resolved that the Custom was good: for the Under-tenant, although he was but Tenant for a year, yet he should have all the benefits and privileges which the Copyholder himself should have had; & qui sentit Commodum sentire debet & Onus; and he is distrainable for the Rents and Services due and payable to the Lord; and the Charge lies upon the Land, and not upon the Custom: and therefore the Custom is good.  
The Custom of a Manor was showed 
H. 37 Eliz. B. R. Brown and Foster's Case, Cro. 1. part, acc.  to be, That any Copyholder of the Manor may surrender within any place of the Manor into the hands of two Tenants; and if a Surrender be to the Use of a Stranger, without expressing any Estate, that the Lord might grant it in Fee to him to whom the Surrender was made. It was objected, That the Custom was unreasonable, because it is to charge the Land with a greater Estate than the Copyholder gave. On the other side it was said, That the Custom was good; for that the Lord is Chancellor in his own Court, and might dispose thereof when the Tenant leaves it uncertain. Quere; for the Case was not Resolved.   

SECT. XX.  
Where and in what case a Copyholder or his Lessee upon an Ouster may have and maintain against the Ejector an Ejectione firm, and where and in what not.  

Proofs.  
IN Ejectione firm the Case was, The 
H. 38 Eliz. C. B. Wells and Partridge's Case, Cro. 1. part.  Plaintiff was Lessee for years of a Copyhold; and the Custom of the Manor was, That a Copyholder might let the Land for 3 years. It was the opinion of Anderson Chief Justice, That the Lessee of a Copyholder cannot maintain Ejectione firm; but if he might, he ought to show his Lessor's Estate, or his Licence, or a special Custom, to warrant it.  
A Copyholder made a Lease for 
M. 14 & 15 Eliz. Leon. 1. part, 4.  years by Indenture warranted by the Custom. It was adjudged, That the Lessee should maintain Ejectione firm; although it was strongly objected, That if it were so, than the Plaintiff should have an Habere facias possessionem, and so Copy-holds should be ordered by the Laws of the Land.  
The Custom of a Manor was, That if any Copyholder of Inheritance died, 
P. 33 Eliz. in B. R. Cole and Wall's Case, Leon. 1. part, 328.  his Heir within the age of 14 years, than the Lord of the Manor might grant the Custody of his Body and Lands▪ to whom he pleased: A Copyholder of Inheritance died, his Heir within the age of 14 years: The Lord committed the Custody of his Body and Lands to I S, who, being ejected, brought a Writ of Ejectione Custody of his Body. It was the opinion of the Justices, That the Action did not lie. But it was agreed in that Case, That an Ejectione firm lieth upon a Demise of Copy-hold-lands by Lease for years by the Copyholder himself, but not upon a Demise by the Lord of the Copyhold.  
Note, It was Resolved by the Justices, 
Coke 4. part, 26. in Melwich●'s Case. M. 8 Jac. in C●. B. Craneford and Freshwater's Case, acc.  That the Lessee of a Copyholder for a year may maintain an Ejectione firm: for inasmuch as his Term is warranted by the Law by force of the general Custom of the Realm, it is but reason that, 
H. 39 Eliz. Cro. 1. part, Goodwin and Langhurst's Case, acc.  if he be ejected, he should have an Ejectione firm; for it is a speedy Course for a Copyholder to gain the possession of the Land against a Stranger, being no more than what right requires to be yielded him for the Recovery of his Estate.    

SECT. XXI.  
What Statutes and Acts of Parliament do extend to Copy-holds and Copy-hold-estates, what not.  
SOme things concerning this Division being spoken of in the former part of this Treatise, and some particular Statutes there being mentioned within which Copy-holds are included, and in what not, I shall refer the Reader thereunto; adding only a few Cases upon some particular Acts not therein mentioned, with the Authorities and Resolutions of the Justices therein. And as concerning within what Statutes Copy-holds are, I shall take and rely upon the general Rule 
Coke 3. part▪ Heydon's Case.  which is put in Sir Edward Coke's 3. part of his Reports, in Heydon's Case, viz. When a Statute or Act of Parliament doth alter the Service, Tenure, Interest of the Estate, or other thing in prejudice of the Lord or of the Custom of the Manor, or in prejudice of the Tenant, there the general words of such Statute or Act of Parliament do not extend to Copy-holds or Copy-hold-estates: But when the Statute or Act of Parliament is generally made for the good of the Commonweal, and no prejudice can come thereby, by alteration of any Service, Tenure, or Interest, or Custom used within the Manor, there Copy-holds and Copy-hold-estates are within the purview of such Statutes or Acts.  

Proofs.  
It was Resolved by all the Justices, 
6 Jac. in Co. B. Coke Select Cases 27, 28.  That no Tenure shall pay for a reasonable Aid to make the eldest Son Knight, or to marry the eldest Daughter, but Tenure by Knight's-Service or Tenure in 
Littl. 16. sect. 36.  Socage. Now Littleton saith, that all Tenors are either Knight's-Service or Socage: And the Statute of Westm. 1. cap. 36. of reasonable Aid extends only to such Tenors. The Question than is, Whether a Copy-hold-Tenure be within that Statute. I shall not determine the Question, for that I do not find it moved in any Book of the Common Law: But although I humbly conceive Copy-holds be within the general words of Mr. Littleton, (all Tenors in Socage;) yet that the said Statute of Westm. 1. cap. 36. doth not extend to Copy-holds. Quere of it.  
The Statute of Westm. 2. de Donis conditionalibus 
Statute Westm. 2. de Donis.  I conceive doth not extend to Copy-holds within the general words thereof. The words of the Statute are of Gifts per Chartam datis; and Copy-holds do not pass by Deeds, but by Surrenders. But yet it is conceived, that although they be not within the general Words of the Statute, yet they are within the Equity of the said Statute, if there be a Custom to warrant such Estates.  
The Case was, A Copyholder in Fee 
H. 37 Eliz. in Co. B. Church and Wyat's Case, Moor 637.  surrendered his Copy-hold-lands to the Life of his Will; and having a Daughter born, and his Wife with Child, he devised part of his said Lands to his Son or Daughter which his Wife went with, & Haeredibus suis legitimè procreatis; and the residue thereof he devised to his Daughter born, to have to her and the fruit of her body. One Point in this Case was, What Estate the Daughter born had in the said Copy-hold-lands, if in Tail or not. It was said, It was a Fee-tail in the Daughter born. But it was much doubted if it was an Estate within the said Statute de Donis, etc. But in that Case it was agreed, That Copyhold might be entailed by Custom co-operating with the said Statute, and if not within the words, yet within the Equity of the said Statute.  
The Statute of Praerogativa Regis, cap. 
Stat. Praerogat. Regis, cap. 9 & 10. Co. 8. part, 170. in Towersons Case. Co. 4. part, 127. in Beverly's Case.  9 and 10. gives the Lands of Idiots natural to the King, he finding them convenient Maintenance out of the Profits thereof: But if the Idiot hath Copy-hold-lands descended unto him, the King shall not have the Wardship of those Lands therewith, out of the Profits thereof to maintain the Idiot, because the same would be prejudicial to the Lord of the Manor, of whom the Lands are holden by Copy. But yet all Alienations made by an Idiot of his Copy-hold-lands, after Office found, shall be avoided by the King.  

Copy-hold-lands are not within the 
Stat. West. 2. cap. 20.  Statute of Westm. 2. cap. 20. of Executions.  
For if a Judgement be had in a Court of Record against a Copyholder for Debt and Damages, although the Plaintiff may have Execution by Fieri facias against his Goods, or a Capias against his Body; yet he cannot have Execution of the moiety of his Copy-hold-lands by Elegit, for that Copy-hold-lands are not within that Statute. And so it is, if a Statute-Merchant or Staple be acknowledged by a Copyholder for the payment of Money at a day certain, which is not paid, his Copy-hold-lands are not extendable for the same. And the reason of these Cases is, because no person can come to Copy-holds but by Admittance of the Lord; and the Lord should thereby lose his Fine which is due upon Admittance, if the party might have the Lands upon Extent delivered unto him.  
If Tenant by the Courtesy, or Lessee 
Pasc. 12 Eliz. in Co. B. Moor 94.  for years, be of a Manor, and Copy-holds were in his hands by Forfeiture or other determination, and he bindeth himself in a Statute, and afterwards he deviseth the Copyhold again; the Copyhold shall be liable to the Statute. But if a Copyholder bindeth himself in a Statute-Merchant or Staple, his Copy-hold-lands shall not be extended upon the said Statute, because therein he hath but an Estate at will.   

Copy-hold-lands are not within the Statute 
Stat. 31 H. 8. cap. 13.  of 31 H. 8. cap. 13. of Monasteries.  
The Guardians of the College of Otlery, Lords of a Manor, granted 
M. 25 & 26 Eliz. in the Exchequer, Leon. 1. part, 4.  Lands for 3 Lives by Copy, according to the Custom of the Manor; afterwards in 30 H. 8. they leased the Lands to I S, rendering the accustomed Rent, and afterwards surrendered their College to King Hen. 8. And if the Lease, being within one year of the Surrender, was within the Statute or not, was the Question. The Case is not adjudged, but a Quere made of it. But in that Case it was adjudged, That if there be Lord of a Copyholder for life, and the Lord grants a Rent-charge out of his Manor, of which the Copyhold is parcel, and then the Copyholder doth surrender to the Use of another, who is admitted; he shall not hold the Lands charged: but if he dieth, so as his Estate is determined, and the Lord grants the Land to another de novo to hold by Copy, the new Tenant shall hold the Land charged.   

Copy-hold-lands not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Rents.  
The Lord of a Manor (of which 
Tr. 27 Eliz. in B. R. Rot. 1201. Sands and Hempstrie's Case, Leon. 2. part, 109.  there were Copy-holds) granted a Rent-charge for life, and afterwards made a Feoffment of the Manor to I S and his Heirs, who granted a Copyhold for life: I S died, and the Rent was behind, and the Grantee of the Rent distrained for the Arrearages. It was Resolved in that Case, That the possession of the Copyholder was not chargeable to the Distress, for that the Copyholder was not in by him who immediately ought to pay the Rent, but in the possession of the Land by the Custom. But Quere 
Hil. 18 Eliz. in Co. B. the Earl of Westmorland's Case, Leon. 3. part, 59  that Case: and vide Hill. 18 Eliz. in Co. B. the Earl of Westmorland's Case. For there the Case was, That the Demesnes of a Manor were usually let for lives by Copy, and the Lord granted a Rent-charge to I D pro Consilio impendendo for life, and afterwards conveyed the Manor to I N in Tail: The Rent was behind, and the Grantee of the Rent died, and the Executors of the Grantee distrained for the Arrearages. And there it was adjudged, That the Copyholder should hold the Lands charged.   

Copy-hold-lands not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Conditions.  
A Copyholder by Licence made a Lease by Indenture for 21 years rendering Rent: The Lessee covenanted to lay upon the Lands yearly 40 Loads of Dung: Afterwards the Copyholder surrendered his Lands unto another in Fee, 
M. 20 Jac. in C. B. Plott and Plomer's Case, Cro. 1. part, 17.  who was admitted. The Point was, If he was such an Assignee as might have Covenant within the Statute of 32 H. 8. Quere; for the Case was not Resolved.  
A Copyholder by Licence of the Lord 
Tr. 10 Jac. in B. R. Brasier and Beale's Case, Yelv. 223.  made a Lease for 60 years, if he so long lived, rendering Rend, upon Condition to re-enter: The Copyholder surrendered to the Lessor of the Plaintiff in Fee, who demanded the Rent, which was not paid. It was Resolved in this Case, That the Entry of the Lessor was not lawful, for that Copy-hold-lands were not within the Statute of Conditions, nor the Lessor such an Assignee as the Statute intended: For the Assignee of a Copyholder being in only by Custom, is not privy to the Lease made by the first Copyholder, nor in by him, but may plead his Estate immediately under the Lord.  
Note, That in no case, where the King claims a share in the Forfeiture of the Lands, (as in the Statute of 2 H. 5. which speaks of Lands forfeited for Heresy, viz. that the King shall have Annum, diem & vastum, as he hath for Lands forfeited for Felony) Copy-hold-lands are not within the general words of such Statute; for that in such case, if the Copyholder committeth Felony, the Copyhold is presently forfeited to the Lord of the Manor; and therefore out of the words of that Statute, and other the like Statutes.  
The Statute of 12 Eliz. cap. 8. which speaks of Inquisitions or Offices found by Escheators, doth not extend to Copy-hold-lands: for although the same are not found within the Inquisitions or Offices, yet the King shall not be entitled to any of the said Copy-hold-lands, but all such Copy-holders' shall and may hold and enjoy their Estates and Interests in their said Copy-hold-lands as formerly they might have done; and the Interest of the Copyhold is preserved by the said Statute, though it be not found by Office after the death of the King's Tenant.  
The Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 4. of 
Vid. 30 Eliz. in Scaccario, Leon. 1. part, 98.  Auditors and Registers of the Queen, doth not extend to Copy-holds, for that it should be a great prejudice.  
Then for the second part of this Division.    

Proofs.  

Copy-hold-lands are within the Statute of 4 H. 7. of Fines.  
If I levy a Fine of my Copy-hold-lands, 
Vid. 30 Eliz. Leon. 99 acc.  and 5 years pass; not only the Lord is thereby barred as to the  of it and the Inheritance, but I, who am the Copyholder, am also barred as to my Possession: For the intent of the 
Vid. Coke 5. part, Sattyn's Case.  Statute was to take away all Controversies, & litibus finem imponere; and Contention may as well arise and be about Copy-hold-lands as for Free-hold-lands at the Common Law.   

Copy-hold-lands are within the Statute of 29 Eliz. and other Statutes of Recusancy.  
A Recusant being convict for not paying 
Tr. 30 Eliz. in Scaccario, Saliard and Ever●t's Case, Leon. 1. part, 97.  of 20 l. a month forfeited by the said Statute, a Commission issued out of the E●chequer to inquire and seize all his Goods, Lands, Tenements and Hereditaments liable to such Seizure: Upon the Return of the Commission it appeared, That some of the Lands returned were Copy-hold-lands. It was a Question if they were within the Statute. It was the opinion of the Court, That they were within the Equity of the Statute: for the words of the Statute are, Lands, Tenements and Hereditaments, which are forcible words; and the intention of the Statute was, That the Queen should have all the Goods, and the Recusant by the words of the Statute was only to have the third part of his Lands, which is all that the Law gives him: And if Copy-hold-lands should not be within the Statute, if a Recusant, who had great Possessions only of Copy-hold-lands, should go unpunished, it was contrary to the meaning of the Makers of the Act.   

Copy-holds are within the Statutes of 13 Eliz. and 1 Jacobi.  
It was Resolved by all the Justices, 
Tr. 15 Jac. in▪ B. R. Cris● and Prat's Case, Noth. 34, 35, and 36.  That Copyhold is within the Statutes of 13 Eliz. and 1 Jacobi, because it is no prejudice to the Lord, for that there ought to be a Composition with the Lord and the Vendee of the Lands; and although the Sale is and aught to be by Indenture, yet the Vendee ought to be admitted by the Lord. 2. The words of the Statute of 13 Eliz. expressly are, That the Commissioners shall dispose of Lands as well Copy as Free; and the said Statutes shall be construed most beneficially for Creditors, i. e. suum cuique tribuere.  
There are divers other Statutes and Acts of Parliament which extend to Copy-hold-lands, viz. 1. The Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 13 & 14. of Forgery. 2. The Statutes of 5 R. 2. of Departure out of the Realm, and 14 Eliz. of Fugitives. 3. The Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 9 of Buying of Pretenced Titles. All which Statutes extend to Copy-hold-lands; of which I might show many Cases and Resolutions of the Justices in their several Courts. But because the same would make this Section to be long and tedious, and my Intention was to use much brevity in this Addition and Amplification of what in the former part of this Treatise hath been written concerning Copyhold and Customary Estates; I shall here put an End to the Work.    
FINIS.   

The Contents of the several Sections.  

SECTION I. WHat a Surrender of Copyhold or Customary Estate is; to whom, and in what manner and place it is to be done; and who shall be said such a Tenant of a Copyhold▪ as may make such a Surrender. Page 1  
Sect. II. Whether a Copyhold may be said to be surrendered by any Act, Words, or Agreement, made betwixt the Lord and the Copyholder, or by the Copyholder with a Stranger made in the Court, in the Presence of the Lord or his Steward. 5  
Sect. III. Of Surrenders out of Court; and where Surrenders to the Steward, Deputy-steward, or into the hands of Tenants of the Manor, out of Court, shall be good, where not. 9  
Sect. IU. Where, although Surrenders are made to the Lord or to Tenants out of Court by Custom, yet nothing passeth out of the Copyholder before Admittance: And what shall be a good Admittance in such case, what not. 17  
Sect. V. Where some things, and what things, may be done by the Copyholder or his Heir before Admittance. 21  
Sect. VI Where the Lord is but an Instrument to convey the Copyhold by Admittance only, and that the Surrenderee is in by the Copyholder, and not by the Lord. 23  
Sect. VII. Where the Admittance of the particular Tenant shall be the Admittance of him in the Remainder. 27  
Sect. VIII. By what and whose Act, either of the Law, of the Copyholder himself, or of the Lord, severally or all together, the Copy-land or Estate shall be gone, determined, or extinguished; and where suspended only. 30  
Sect. IX. Of Forfeitures of Copy-holds and Copy-hold-estates; and what Acts or things done▪ by the Copyholder shall amount unto or be adjudged a Forfeiture of the Copy-holder's Estate, what not. 36  
Sect. X. Where denial or refusal to pay his Rent, Fine, or to do his other Customs and Services, shall be a Forfeiture of his Copyhold and Copy-hold-estate, and where not. 39  
Sect. XI. Where the Act of the Lord, and what Act of his, shall dispense with a Forfeiture made by his Copyholder; where and what not. 48  
Sect. XII. Whether Copy-hold-lands be within the Statute of Westm. 2. and may be entailed, or not; and where and by what Acts the Issues in tail may be barred; and what shall be a Discontinuance of the Estate, what not. 51  
Sect. XIII. What things are incident to a Copyholder, and what he may take of common right without the Grant or Licence of the Lord: And what Acts upon the Land shall bind the Copyholder, what not. 64  
Sect. XIV. Where the Lord of the Manor shall be Chancellor in his own Court, to determine the Differences which arise betwixt Copy-holders'. 69  
Sect. XV. Of Surrenders upon Conditions; and where such Surrenders shall be good, where not. 70  
Sect. XVI. Where Custom which warrants the Lord or his Copyholder to grant greater Estates, warrants the Grants of lesser Estates. 76  
Sect. XVII. Who shall be said such a Lord of a Manor as may grant Copy-hold-estates; and how long such Estates shall continue; and what persons shall be capable of Copy-hold-estates, what not; and what may be granted by Copy. 79  
Sect. XVIII. What Acts or things are inseparable, and must be done by the Copyholder himself; and what acts and where may be done by his Attorney. 83  
Sect. XIX. What Customs within Copy-hold-Manors shall be said to be good and reasonable Customs, and what not. 88  
Sect. XX. Where and in what case a Copyholder or his Lessee upon an Ouster may have and maintain against the Ejector an Ejectione firm, and where and in what not. 97  
Sect. XXI. What Statutes and Acts of Parliament do extend to Copy-holds and Copy-hold-estates, what not. 99   
FINIS.