A supplement by way of additions to and amplifications of the foregoing treatise, concerning copy-hold 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 common laws of England in divers cases.

Proofs.

If the Under-steward hold a Court 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 doe 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 Copy-holder upon a Surrender out of Court, without a special authority from the Lord so to doe.

A Deputy-steward may take a Sur∣render 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 Steward by Word, and such a Retainer shall be good untill 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 it Resolved Tr. 41 Eliz. in Harris and

Jaye's Case in B. R. But Quere of the first 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 onely, out of Court, was not good.

In 17 Eliz. in Co. B. it was said by Dyer and Mounson, That without a Pre∣scription 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 Custome 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 Cu∣stome. 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 Copy-holder in Fee did, according to the Custome of the Manor, surrender his Copy-hold-lands into the hands of two Tenants; but the Surrender was to the Use of J 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, al∣though it was out of Court, by Custome. But because in that Case the Surrender was unto the Use of J S, to take effect im∣mediately after the death of the Surren∣deror, and a Free-hold cannot begin in futuro, or at a day to come, by the Com∣mon Law, and for that the Estates of Co∣py-holders shall be directed according to the Rules of the Common Law; for that cause onely 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 Custome; yet untill such Surrender be presented by them in the Court of the Lord of the Manor, the E∣state of the Lands doth remain in the Surrenderor, and nothing passeth thereby.

A Copy-holder in Fee did surrender into the hands of two Tenants, according to the Custome, to the Use of A and B, who thereupon entred 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 Surren∣der was made, as also the Copy-holder the Surrenderor, all of them died, and thereupon the Heir of the Copy-holder

Surrenderor entred upon the said A and B, and made a Lease for years of the Lands, which Lease was warranted by the Custome. 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 Copy-hol∣der 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 Copy-hold or a Copy-hold-Estate, but such a person who comes in∣to the same by the Custome of the Ma∣nor, viz. by Admittance of the Lord, which in this Case A and B did not doe. But in that Case it was doubted by the Ju∣stices, 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 Joynt-tenants in Fee of Lands which were holden by Copy. One of them, according to the Custome, surrendred 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 Copy-holder who made the Surrender had died before the same had been presen∣ted, then the Copy-hold had survived to the surviving Joynt-tenant.

Two Coparcenors, Copy-holders, were in possession; the one did surrender her Reversion in the Moyety after her decease. It was adjudged a void Surrender, because a Free-hold could not commence in fu∣turo, as well of Copy-hold-lands as of Free-hold-lands.

A Copy-holder surrendred a Messuage and 20 Acres of Lands into the hands of two Tenants out of Court, to the Use of J S and his Heirs, upon Condition, that if he paid J S 100 l. before such a day, the Surrender to be void. Before the day of payment he surrendred one Acre, parcel of the 20 Acres, unto J D and his Heirs, and afterwards he performed the Condition by paying the 100 l. and afterwards in Court he surrendred the said Messuage and 20 Acres of Lands in∣to

the hands of the Steward, to the Use of J N and his Heirs. It was found by the Jurours that the first Surrender made to J S was never presented, but the two last Surrenders were presented. In this Case it was Resolved, That by the Condi∣tional Surrender nothing passed, untill it was presented; but the Interest, Right and Possession remained in the Copy-hol∣der 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 accor∣ding to the manner of the Surrender the same was good by the Custome; yet be∣cause 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 J D and his Heirs, stood good, and the last Surrender to the Use of J N and his Heirs took no effect.

A Copy-holder in Fee made a Letter of Attorney to two Tenants of the Ma∣nor, to surrender his Copy-hold out of

Court unto the Use of J S and his Heirs: They surrendred the same accordingly, and at the next Court brought in the Sur∣render into Court, (but no Custome was found to warrant such a Surrender.) Not∣withstanding in that Case it was Re∣solved, 1. That it was a good Surrender, because he might doe it de communi jure without alledging any Custome. 2. When the Tenants shewed 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 legal∣ly done.

Notes

• 2 E. 6. Br. Tenant per Copie 26.
• 19 Eliz. in Co. B.
• 8 Eliz. Dyer 248.
• Co. 4. part, Holcroft's Case.
• Vr. 31 Eliz. C. B. Bl••∣grave and Wood's Case, Godb. 142.
• M. 17 Eliz. in C. B. by Dyer and Mounson.
• M. 14 Jac. B. R. Fros∣well and Welshe's Case, Bridg∣man 52.
• M. 9. Jac. Cro. 2. part, Porter and Porter's Case.
• p. 10 Jac. B. R. Godb▪ 141.
• M. 8 Jac. in B. R. Cro. 3. part, Bur∣goyne and Spurling's Case.
• Coke 9. part, Comb's Case.