thing that appeared to the contrary, that the lord did only seise till a tenant came in to be admitted; and that omnia presumuntur solemniter esse acta; but I think, that sufficient appears in the case, to show that the seisure was irregular. A seisure generally, and undefined, must necessarily be a seisure of the whole property; if it were not, what other line could be drawn? So an entry upon an estate generally, is an entry for the whole; and if it be for less, it should be so defined at the time. The case however does not rest on this observation, for we collect from subsequent acts of the lord, which are unambiguous, what his idea was when he did seise; for he made an absolute grant of the whole of this property to the. defendant, his heirs and assigns for ever, taking a fine of 6921. for his admission. Then I am bound to that the lord entered as for an absolute forfeiture; and as this is a proceeding where the most strict regularity is necessary in all its parts, we are warranted in saying that here was no seisure binding on the parties." say, The other Judges concurring, judgement was given for the heirs of Sir S. Helier. son in Re 39. Where the custom of the manor requires, that of a Pera person taking an estate in remainder, shall come mainder. in and be admitted, the lord may seise quousque the tenant comes in. And the proclamations being in general terins for any person to come in and make title, and the presentment of default being also general, are good; though the person in remainder were known, and named in the surrender. 5 East. 522. 40. In a modern case, which has been already Doe v. stated, where a remainder-man refused to come in Jenney, and be admitted, the custom requiring that persons in remainder should come in and be admitted; there was a presentment by the homage, that E. I., who was tenant for life, died seised; and three proclamations were made at three different courts, that if any per son or persons would come into Court and make any just claim to the lands whereof the tenant for life died seised, such person or persons should come into court and take admission to the same. No one coming to be admitted, a precept was issued by the steward of the manor, directed to the bailiff, autho rizing him, in the presence of two or more copyhold tenants of the manor, to seise into the hands of the lord, quousque the tenant should come in to be admitted, all such copyhold lands, &c. to and for the use of the lord. The lands were accordingly seised by the bailiff, and the lord made a lease and brought an ejectment. It was objected, that the next tenant being known and named in the rolls, the proclamations and the presentment should have been against her by name. Lord Ellenborough delivered the judgement of the Court. He said, the question was, whether the presentment that the tenant for life died seised, and the proclamations made, “that if "that if any person would come into court and make just claim or title to the lands whereof E. I. died seised, such person should come into court and take admission of the same,' ,, was sufficient. No authority had been cited in support of this objection; but it rested wholly in what was said to be the usual practice in courts-baron, of mentioning in the presentment and proclamations the name of the person, when known, who ought to come in and be admitted. If the tenant, when known, were likely to be prejudiced by not being named, this objection would have weight; and though, as the ob ject of the presentment was for the information and instruction of the lord, it would, in respect of him, be better to mention the person who ought to come in and be admitted, when known; yet, in respect to the heir or remainder-man, this was not the purpose of the presentment, nor were the proclamations intended to inform persons of their titles, but to give notice to those who had a right to be admitted, that the tenancy was vacant, and that the lord required of those who were entitled, to take upon themselves the tenancy; and it seemed sufficient, so far as the tenant was concerned, if the presentment and proclamations were in the general terms used on this occasion. For these reasons, the Court thought there should be judgement for the lord. 41. A custom that the person to whose use a copy- Of a Surhold is surrendered, shall come in and be admitted, renderee. King v. after three proclamations, or otherwise that the lands Dilliston, shall be forfeited, is good. But in a case of this Freein. kind, infancy will excuse. 494. 42. It has been stated that copyholds are indirectly of a Devisee. devisable. In such a case, the non-appearance of a devisee to be admitted operates in general as a forfeiture. Hutton, Wils. 162. 43. A copyhold was devised to six persons upon Roe v. certain trusts; one offered to be admitted and to pay 2 his proportion of the fine, which the lord refused, unless he would pay the whole; the other five declined the trust. The lord, after three proclamations for the six trustees to come in and be admitted, seised for the forfeiture. The Court held, that the lord ought to have admitted the person who offered himself, and then he might have proceeded to recover his fine from the six devisees, if it was due either by law, or the custom of the manor; and that he had been too hasty in entering for a supposed forfeiture before VOL. I. B b Clayton v. admittance. A seisure quousque was till somebody came to be admitted; so that it was clear the lord had no right to seise. 44. The lord of a manor, cannot bring a bill in 2 Atk. 449. Chancery against a copyholder, to compel him to come in and be admitted tenant; for he has his remedy at law, by making proclamations so many court days. But if there be any confusion arising from copyhold lands being blended together, the lord may bring a bill of discovery, to ascertain the lands. Who may forfeit. Co. Cop. $59. Idein. Gilb. Ten. 45. All persons of sufficient understanding may forfeit a copyhold; but a man of nonsane memory, an idiot, or a lunatick, are unable to forfeit. So an infant under fourteen, because he wants discretion. But an infant at the age of discretion may forfeit his copyhold, not by offences which proceed from neg. ligence or ignorance, but by such as proceed from contempt. 46. A feme covert cannot by any act of her own forfeit her copyhold; because she is not sui juris sed sub potestate viri. But she may, by an act done with the consent of her husband, incur a forfeiture. And 4 Rep. 27 a. it was resolved in 27 Eliz. that where a woman tenant for life takes a husband, who commits waste and dies, the estate of the wife is forfeited. 243. 47. By the statute 9 Geo. I. c. 29. § 5. it is enacted, that no infant or feme covert shall forfeit any copyhold messuages, &c. for their neglect or refusal to come into any court or courts to be kept for any manor, whereof such messuages, &c. are parcel, and to be admitted thereto; nor for the omission, denial, or refusal to pay any fine imposed or set on their admittances. And by the sixth section it is provided, that if the fines so imposed shall not be warranted by the custom of the manor, or shall be unlawful, then such infant or feme covert shall be at liberty to controvert the legality of such fine or fines. 48. It was resolved in a modern case, that if one of several coheirs of a copyholder be a feme covert, and the lord seises the whole estate, in default of the heirs not coming in to be admitted, after three proclamations, without first appointing a guardian for the feme covert, according to this act, a seisure of the whole estate is irregular; though it was not I known to the lord that one of the heirs was a feme covert. 13 Ves. 240. 49. This statute is confined to the cases ex- Kensington pressed; namely, title by descent, or surrender to v. Mansell, the use of a will; and does not extend to a title under a deed. Forfeiture. 50. A forfeiture, in general, only extends to the Extent of a copyhold in which the act has been done. For if a copyholder be seised of Black Acre, White Acre, and Green Acre, and commits waste in Black Acre, it is thereby forfeited; but there is no forfeiture of White Acre or Green Acre. Cromwell, 217. 1 Roll. Ab. 51. If a copyholder makes a feoffinent of one acre Fuller v. of his copyhold, all is not forfeited, but only that Terry, acre. But if a copyholder cuts down a tree growing 509. upon any part of his copyhold, this is a forfeiture of Gilb. Ten. all. 217. 246. 52. Some acts amount to a forfeiture, the moment where Prethey are committed: others are not forfeitures till they are presented by the homage, in the lord's court. Offences which are apparent and notorious, of which the lord, by common presumption, cannot choose but have notice, are forfeitures immediately. But presentment by the homage is necessary in those cases sentment is necessary. Co. Cop. 57, 8. Gilb. Ten. 246. |