case cook versus arnham June S c p wms a seize in fee of freehold and of  copyhold land devise all his message and land whether freehold or copyhold to  c who be his grandson and heir at law for life remainder to his first and  other son in tail remainder to his daughter in tail remainder to his young son  the plaintiff in fee and die without surrender to the use of his will c die  without issue have first surrender to the use of his will and thereby devise  the copyhold land to his mother the court supply the defect of the surrender  in favour of the plaintiff although his father have make some other provision  for he and although this be only a remainder after a estate tail upon a rehear  the case be thus Robert cook seize in fee of copyhold land in Lakenham in the  county of Norfolk and of several freehold land by will date April devise all  his message and land whether freehold or copyhold to his grandson Richard cook  who be his heir at law for life remainder to his first and other son in tail  remainder to his daughter in tail remainder to his young son the plaintiff in  fee and die without make any surrender to the use of his will Richard the  grandson die without issue but before his death surrender the copy case tempt  Talbot er p hold land in Lakenham to the use of his will whereby he devise  they to his mother and her heir case tempt Talbot the question be first  whether the defect of the surrender shall be supply in favour of the plaintiff  not be a child unprovide for but already provide for another way second  whether equity will supply the defect it be in case of so remote a devise as a  remainder upon a estate tail which be of no or at least very little value in  the eye of the law and defect be never supply where the heir be disinherit and  here the heir at law have only a estate for life with a remainder in tail it  have be decree at the roll against the plaintiff that this be no present  provision intend for he the defect shall not be supply Lord chancellor there  never have be any surrender to the use of the will the legal estate descend to  the grandson as heir at law and therefore the single question now be whether  this court will supply that defect the rule be that creditor be entitle to  have a defect of a surrender supply as be likewise young child unprovide for  and that from the circumstance of the person who appear in a favourable light  before the court but the objection here be that the plaintiff do not appear in  that favourable light he be otherwise provide for as to that it have be often  hold here that the father be the sole and only judge of the quantum of the  provision and the defect of surrender have be supply even where the copyhold  estate intend to pass have make but part of the provision and so not liable to  the objection of leave the child entire unprovide for in case the defect be  not supply for the court have never yet enter into the consideration of the  quantum that be proper for each child and I do not find it insist on by the  counsel that have the provision be in the same will and not by any other act  in the testator lifetime that that will have take away any equity he may have  to get the defect supply and if it will not in that case why shall it in this  case tempt Talbot the objection be that this can not be intend as a present  provision be a remainder after several estate tail which be so remote be of  little or no value in the eye of the law but this objection be of no weight  for suppose the father have but a remainder upon a estate for life may not he  have make a provision out of it for his child it be true he can not make so  good a provision as where be be in actual possession but it will be a  provision still and if after one life why not after three or four and what  difference be there between the case where the court will supply a defect of a  surrender upon a remainder depend on a estate for life and where the whole be  devise away or be only a remainder after a estate tail that be why shall it be  supply where the whole be devise away from the heir at law and not where but  part here be no intermediate disposal of the estate but to such person as will  have all be entitle to take as heir at law before the plaintiff so his intent  be that for so long as his heir at law continue such as will be so before the  plaintiff that this shall be a provision for he and when they fail there be no  heir at law to be disinherit but he become heir at law himself nor can it be  say that there be a heir at law unprovide for for though he be make but tenant  for life yet there be limitation to all his issue who be all to take before  the plaintiff and so reverse the decree and order the defect of the surrender  to be supply at the plaintiff charge but direct the account of rend and profit  only from the time of fill the bill lib r ante p will S c Eq Cas Abr S c the  case of Burton versus Lloyd in Lord harcourt time say to be in point It appear  by the register book that in this case the bill be bring inter all to supply  the deficiency of a surrender leave in the hand of a customary tenant and not  present at the next court the use of the surrender be to the testator old son  Andrew Burton and the heir male of his body and for want of such issue to the  plaintiff the second son and the heir male of his body remainder over the  cause be hear before his honour d July who decree for the plaintiff and on the  that November that decree be on a appeal affirm by Lord chancellor Vid p will  case tempt Talbot er p in the register book this case be state thus Robert  cook the plaintiff late father be seize in fee at the will of the lord accord  to the custom of the manor of Lakenham in the county of Norfolk of several  copyhold land hold of the say manor and surrender the same to the use of his  will and afterward videlicet about the that of April the say Robert cook make  his will and thereby give and devise all his message and land in the city of  Norwich and county of Norfolk whereof he be seize in fee whether freehold or  copyhold to his grandson Richard cook for life and after his death to the  first second three and every other son and son of the say Richard cook lawful  to be beget and to the heir of the body and body of every such son and son  with remainder to the daughter and daughter of the say Richard cook and the  heir of their several and respective body and body remainder to the plaintiff  his heir and assign for ever and make the plaintiff his sole executor about  Michaelmas the say Robert cook die without revoke his say will and seize in  fee as aforesaid and without have make any surrender to the use of the will  and leave the say Richard cook his grandson and heir at law the say Richard  cook by virtue of the say will enter on the say premise and enjoy the same for  life and about the year die without issue whereby all the say premise devise  by the say will and particular the say copyhold premise descend to the  plaintiff the defendant arnham get into possession of the say copyhold premise  and refuse to deliver up the same to the plaintiff pretend that the say Robert  cook do not surrender the say copyhold premise to the use of his will and that  the same upon his death descend to the say Richard cook in fee and that he  before his death surrender the say copyhold premise to the use of his will and  that he afterward make his will and thereby devise the same to Susannah cook  his mother and her heir and that the say Susannah cook afterward devise or  surrender the say copyhold premise to the use of the defendant and admin fee  the plaintiff insist that if a surrender by the say Robert cook to the use of  his last will be want the want of such surrender ought to be aid in a court of  equity in favour of the plaintiff who be a young son of the say Robert cook  the defendant arnham insist that the say Richard cook and himself have be  above twenty year in quiet possession of the say premise the plaintiff ought  not to set up any title to the same after such length of time and that a  surrender shall not be supply in prejudice of a heir at law and those claim  under he though the plaintiff be a young son for that the plaintiff father in  his lifetime give he pound and at his death by his will give he also pound  more which far exceed the fortune either leave or descend to the say Richard  cook as heir at law to the say Robert cook and that after the say Richard cook  death who die without issue the plaintiff have as heir at law to his father  estate of pound per annum and after the death of the say Susannah cook the  plaintiff have also as heir to his father other estate of inheritance of the  yearly value of pound and that there be no want of asset to pay his debt Reg  lib fol case tempt Talbot de term S michaelis geo two in curian porter