other lives, such custom may operate to devest the legal estate of the lives in reversion, and give it.to the lessee; or if that were doubtful ; or if the licence of the lord might be construed to extend only to the first taker of the new copy jointly with his mother, and the first taker alone executed such licence after her death; yet a court of equity (even if the surviving life (the son) succeeded at law on his strict legal title) would make the son, the surviving life convey to his father's lessee and pay all the costs in law and equity. Swift d. Farr v. Davis. 8 East, 358, n.

21 The lord of a manor, as such, has

But

no right without a custom, to enter upon the copyholds within his manor under which there are mines and veins of coal, in order to boar for and work the same: and the copyholder may maintain trespass against him for so doing. where the defendant justified under the lord, as being seised in fee of the veins of coal lying under the copyhold tenements,together with the liberty of boring for and getting the coal, &c. it is not enough for the plaintiff to reply, that as well all the veins of coal under the said closes in which, &c. as the rest of the soil within and under the same, had immemorially been parcel of the manor and demised and demisable by copy, &c. without any exception or reservation of the coal, &c. unless he also traverse the liberty of working the mines; because the plea elaims such liberty not merely as annexed to the seisin in fee to be exercised when in actual possession but as a present liberty to be exercised during the continuance of the copyhold's estate; and therefore the replication is only an argumentative denial of the liberty, and does not confess and avoid it. Bourne v. Taylor. 10 East, 189. 22 One who has a prima facia title to a copyhold is entitled to inspect the court rolls, and take copies of

23

them, so far as relates to the copy. hold claimed, though no cause be depending for it at the time. King v. Lucas. 10 East, 235.

Entries on the rolls of a manor court, of admissions of tenants in remainder after the determination of the estate of the last tenant's widow who held during her chaste viduity, are evidence of a custom for the widow to hold on that condition, so as to maintain ejectment against her as for a forfeiture, on proof of her incontinence; although there were no instances in fact stated on the rolls or known of such a forfeiture having been enforced. Doe dem. Askew v. Askew. 10 East, 520. 24 A copyhold having descended to a wife as heir at law, who died before admittance, having first borne a child to her husband, which died an infant, the husband was held entitled to hold for his life, in the nature of a tenant by the courtesy of England, according to the custom of the manor; though the only evidence of such custom on the rolls was three instances of husbands admitted as tenants by the courtesy, according to the custom, whose respective wives had been admitted during their lives; the title of a wife claiming as heir by descent being complete without admittance, by the general law of copyhold, and the title of a tenant by the courtesy being also by operation of law. Doe d. Milner v. Brightwen. Brightwen. 10 East,

583.

25 And having such good title to the possession as tenant by the courtesy, his possession of the copyhold, after his wife's death will be referred to that, and not to any adverse title; though he were admitted after his wife's death to hold to him pursuant to the settlement, by which the estate of the wife was limited to the survivor in fee; so as to let in the title of the heir at law of the wife in ejectment brought within 20 years after the husband's death. Ibid.

9 A covenant to surrender a copyhold to a purchaser, and to make and do all acts, deeds, &c. for the perfect surrendering and assuring the premises at the costs nnd charges of the seller, is not broken by non-payment of the fine to the lord on the admission of the purchaser ; for the title is perfected by the admittance of the tenant, and the fine is not due till after the admittance. Graham v. Sime. 1 East, 632. 10 If an assessment of a copyhold fine be entered in the court rolls as of 1001. but that out of especial fa- 4 vour the lord remitted 401. and thereby reduced it to 601. and the lord sued for the fine, and the jury finding the annual value of the premises 301. give a verdiet for 601., the lord cannot retain the verdiet for the sum actually due, but must make a new assessment; the old assessment, notwithstanding the remitter, being in law an assessment as of 100l. 3 Bos. & Pull. 346. 11 The lord may recover from a copyholder the fine assessed by him on admittance, not exceeding two years value of the tenement, although there be no entry of the assessment of such fine on the court rolls, but only a demand of such a sum for a fine after the value of the tenement had been found by the homage. Lord Northwick v. Stanway. 6 East, 56.

5

6

No relief against a voluntary forfeiture of copyhold estase, as by making a lease without licence from the lord; but it is otherwise where the forfeiture was only intended by way of security for sums due. Surrender of copyhold lands to the following uses, declared by marriage settlement, to that of the tenant for his life, remainder to his first son in tail, &c. if there has been an admittance upon it, the act of the tenant cannot prejudice the son, who is a distinct tenant. Sir Harry Peachy v. The Duke of Somerset. In Chancery. 1 Str. 447.

If one of several co-heirs of a copyholder be a feme covert at the time of the ancestor's death, and the lord seize the whole estate, (in default of the heir's not coming in to be admitted after three proclamations,) without first appointing an attorney or guardian for the feme covert, according to the requisites of stat. 9 G. 1, c. 29, a seizure of the whole estate is irregular, though it be not known to the lord that one of the heirs is a feme covert. Roe d. Tarrant v. Hellier. 3 Term Rep.

162.

8

11 A copyholder demised for one year,
and from thence from year to year
for the term of 13 years more, if the
lord would license, and so as the same
should not be liable to forfeiture:
held that the licence of the lord was
a condition precedent to the lease
for the further term of 13 years;
and the lord having given notice
that he would not give such licence,
the assignee of the lessor, to whom
the premises were surrendered, was
holden entitled to recover in eject-
ment against the tenant after six
month's notice to quit: although it
appeared that such surrenderee was
a trustee for the lord, (the real pur-
chaser,) who had notice of the
terms of the demise when he pur-
chased, with an exception in the
contract of purchase, of all subsist-
ing leases, and afterwards accepted
of quit-rent from the tenant; the 2
consideration of these latter circum-
stances belonging to a court of equi-
ty. Doe d. Nunn v. Luffkin & al.
4 East, 221.

142 The same case being sent by the
Lord Chancellor for the opinion of
the court of C. P., with the addi-
tional fact, that the lessor had
covenanted that the lessee should
quietly enjoy during the term; that
court certified their opinion; that
the ejectment would lie; and that
no action would lie on the covenant
for quiet enjoyment. Luffkin & al.
v. Nunn & al. New Rep. 163.
13 Where a copyholder in fee, who
had paid a fine on his original ad-
mittance, surrendered to the use of
himself for life, remainder to his wife
for life, remainder over; on which
surrender and re-admittance no new
fine was paid; and by the custom
a remainder-man coming into pos-
session on the death of tenant for
life must be admitted and pay a
fine: held, that such a custom is
good; and that on the death of ten-
ant for life, the next in remainder
not coming in to be admitted and
pay his fine after proclamations
made and presentment by the jury,

1

a

4

5

the lord may seize quousque the tenant comes in, and maintain ejectment to recover the possession in the mean time. And such proclamations being in general terms for any person to come in and make title, &c. and the presentment of default being also general, are good; though the person next in remainder were known and named in the surrender. Doe d. Whitbread v. Jenny. 5 East,

522.

IV. Surrender, Effect of.

A surrender to one who is convicted of felony, and hanged before admittance, the lands are not forfeited to to the lord, but descend to the heir of the surrenderer. Roe, on dem. of Jeffereys and another v. Hicks and another. 2 Wils. 13.

Copyholder in fee, having surrendered to the use of his will, and afterwards surrendering to new particular uses, with reversion to himself in fee, is in of the old use, and may devise the reversion, without any admittance or fresh surrender to the use of his will. Thrustout on the demise of Gower and Cunningham. 2 Black. 1046.

A copyholder ex parte materna, devises to his heir, who dies before admittance; the lands remain deseendable to the heir on the part of the mother. Smith v. Figgs. Str. 487.

1

The grant of a lord of a manor of copyhold lands to his wife immediately, is void. Firebrass on dem. of Symes, Wid. v. Pennant. 2 Wils.

251.

Surrender and admission make but one title which is not complete till admission; they are different parts of the same conveyance; the former the substantial part, the latter the formal. The admittance must follow the surrender, and shall relate back to it, and operate from the time of it. The lord is compellable, by mandamus, or deeree, to admit, he is only an instrument after