case Oakley against smith that Jan and d Feb two tenant in common of a  copyhold estate in tail agree upon a partition each surrender the part allot  to the other hold the entail be bar only as to a moiety lib Reg b foe b foe S  c hark ms S c Eden upon rehear after a decree make by sir Thomas clarke master  of the roll sit for the Lord keeper the case be Henry Griffith Biggs upon his  marriage in agree to settle certain copyhold estate to the use of himself for  life remainder to his wife for life remainder to his first c son in tail  remainder to his daughter in tail remainder to the heir of his body remainder  to himself in fee the copyhold be afterward surrender to the use of the  settlement but the limitation to the daughter be make to the first and other  daughter in tail there be a son and two daughter and the son die it become of  consequence to the young daughter to have the settlement make right and accord  in it be decree that a new surrender shall be make to the proper use this be  do in and a recovery suffer pursuant ambler to the decree the father die and  in in the lifetime of the mother the two daughter go to be marry enter into a  agreement by deed to make a partition of the estate by which each be to have  particular part of it and in June they each make a separate surrender of that  part of the estate which be allot to the other the part allot and surrender to  Lucy be settle by her upon her marriage with the plaintiff and afterward by a  private act of parliament vest in trustee to her separate appointment she  appoint to her husband for life with power of charge with two sum of pound and  pound and die Sarah the other sister marry smith and be also dead leave issue  two son bill by plaintiff the husband of Lucy to have the two sum raise out of  the moiety allot to Lucy the defendant smith the old son of Sarah claim a  moiety of that moiety under the old entail upon the death of Lucy without  issue sir Robert Henley Lord keeper Q what be the effect of the write and the  two surrender with regard to bar the estate tail I be of opinion the several  daughter only bar a moiety of their respective estate it be argue that the  write in operate as a complete partition of the copyhold and that it be the  same as if they have be a estate of freehold in which case if they have make a  partition in write without any word of conveyance it will have be a good  partition but in my opinion if that point have be establish it do not follow  that it will be so in the case of a copyhold suppose it the case of a freehold  and there have be such a write and afterward they bad suffer a recovery if  only one of they have come in as vouchee the entail have not be bar of the  whole so if each of they have grant a moiety by a separate deed it will not  have be good and sufficient to make a tenant to the prcipe of the whole see    Litt a a note Ireland v rittle atk church v Edward bro c c see Rep marquis of  Winchester case apply this to the copyhold it be only a ambler agreement to  divide no actual partition afterward each surrender only a moiety of a moiety  she have power of no more can operate as a surrender of the whole decree  affirm Mr Wilbraham for the plaintiff cite cro Elizabeth   light a Q be v  petty in winch as to partition by copyhold tenant without the intervention of  the lord and see king v Haddenham east Burrall v Dodd Bos pull Watks on  copyhold Edn by vidal p ambler er p