brook case where upon surrender of copybold land no use be limit to who use it  shall be in a ejection strong bring by one brook against brook the case be  thus John wright a copybolder in fee Elizabeth surrender his land into the  hand of the lord by the hand of tenant accord to the custom c without save to  who use the surrender shall be and at the next court the say John wright be  admit habendum to he and his wife in tail the remainder the right heir of  Popham er p John wright and the wife of John wright now defendant be seize  from the time of the admittance until this day and it be object by the council  of the plaintiff that the surrender be void because no use be limit and  therefore by constitution of law ought to be to the use of the surrender as if  a feoffnaent be make and no use limit it shall be to the use of the feoff or  as it be in sir Edward clear case coke lib if a feoff be make by one to the  use of his last will he have the use in the mean time that the admittance be  not available to pass a estate to the wife for she be not name in the premise  but only in the habendum and the office of a habendum be to limit the estate  and not the person and therefore it be say in Throgmorton and tracies case in  Plowd Com that if one be name to take a estate in the habendum where he be not  name at all in the premise this be not good but it be resolve by the whole  court for the first point that the subsequent act shall explain the surrender  for when abesse provisio birth eat up provisio law and when the copyholder  accept a new admittance the law intend that the surrender general make be to  such a use as be specify in the admittance and the lord be only as a  instrument to convey the estate and as it be put in trust to make such a  admittance as he who surrender will have he to make and crook justice say  fides summon fide obligate Popham for the second point it be also agree by the  court that the wife shall take by this admittance albeit she be not name in  the premise but only in the habendum and they agree that in feoff and grant  the party that be not name in the premise shall not take by the habendum and  therefore Throgmorton and tracy case as to this point be good law but this  case of a copybold be like to the case of a will or to the case of  frankmarriage in which it be sufficient to pass a estate albeit the party be  only name in the habendum and if it shall be otherwise the estate of many  copyholder will be subvert and so they resolve that judgement shall be give  for the defendant the same term in the same court