come in to be admitted, and if he come not in, it shall be a forfeiture to the Lord; yet an Infant shall not be comprehended within this Custom, for he by intendment of Law is not at discretion to make his Claim, 8 Rep. 100. Letchford's Case.
It seems to be a Rule in Law, An Infant cannot be protected by the Law by his non-age in any Case, but where his Right which he had while an Infant, and descended to him, might have been barr'd and interrupted by non-claim; so in case of forfeiture; the reason of the Rule is, because the Law conceives he will have that knowledge to preserve his right when he is of full Age, Carter's Rep. 86. in Smith and Painton's Case.
It was holden in Rumny and Eve's Case, 1 Leon. p. 100 Pl. 128. If a Copy-holder dyeth, his Heir within Age, he is not bound to come into any Court during his non-age, to pray admit∣tance, or to tender his Fine.
An Infant who surrenders his Copy-hold Land, within Age, may enter at his full Age, without being put to any Suit for it. A Case cited in Popham 39. in Bullock and Dibler's Case.
Infant Copy-holder in Fee makes a Lease for years, without Licence, rendring Rent at full Age, he accepts the Rent, and after outs the Lessee. Lessee brings Ejectment, and Judgment for Lessee. Per Cur. this Lease may be affirmed by acceptance, and such a Forfeiture shall not bind an Infant, 8 Rep. 44. Noy 92.