case wither against wither and other in a manor the custom be to grant for  three life successive a be the last life in a old copy obtain a fresh grant to  b and c a pay the whole fine b and c be hold trustee for a lib Reg b fol S c  hark ms in chancery Nov it be the custom of the manor of water Eaton and Fenny  Stratford to grant copyhold for three life successive as nominator c price be  the last life in a old copy the lord of the manor as it appear in evidence  advice he to renew and upon that he inquire after two healthy young person and  name the defendant Harris and bowl and a copy be grant to hold to they  successive it also appear on the copy that the fine which be pound be pay by c  price the defendant be stranger to c price Q if on the death of c price Harris  who be the next in nomination be entitle or whether the copyhold go to the  representative of c price ambler Lord Hardwicke c of opinion that result trust  of copyhold as well as of freehold be within the statute of fraud and perjury  and that the representative of c price be entitle to the copyhold estate by  operation of law how v how in vern be in point therefore decree c Rundle v  bundle vern be cite a question be make to who the copyhold shall belong  whether to the heir at law or personal representative Lord chancellor think  they shall go to the latter upon the authority of the above case but decline  give a formal opinion which appear not necessary as the debt by specialty be  much great than the amount of the personal estate see Goodright v Langfield  lofft S c Watk copyhold he say obiter that the stat g it to lifehold estate do  not extend to copyhold note it be decide in zouch they force v force east that  neither the stat Geo c S nor car c S extend to copyhold those statute be pass  to obviate the inconvenience of general occupancy but there can be no general  occupancy of a copyhold because the freehold be always in the lord See Lord  Raymond salk Gib fen donc v Martin black Rep do d Forster v Scott b c d Ry how  v how vern clarke v Danvers Ch can bundle v bundle vern anon Freem Benger v  draw p wms smith v Barker July I atk Rumboll v Rumboll April Eden tailor v  tailor atk mumma v mumma vern crisp v Pratt cro car Scroop v Scroop Ch can  Elliott v Elliott Ch can Gascoigne v Thurery vern young v peachy atk Lloyd v  spillet atk S c r wms in dyer v dyer Cox Lord c b Eyre after consider all the  previous authority state the clear result of all the case to be that the trust  of a legal estate whether freehold or copyhold or leasehold whether take in  the name of the purchaser and other general or in the name of other without  that of the purchaser whether in one name or several whether joint or  successive result to the man who advance the purchasemoney see finch v finch  Ves Ridery Kidder Ves Murless v franklin Swanst Mackreth v simmons Ves so if  two person make a joint purchase in the name of one there will be a result  trust for the other Wray v steel v b so also where there be ambler er p a  declaration as to part of the land only there will be a result trust for the  purchaser of the rest in lane v Dighton post Lloyd v spillet atk and the  purchaser may give evidence that the consideration be pay by he lane v Dighton  post and case cite in note there and gascoine v Thwing vern Ambrose v Ambrose  p W but where the purchase be in the name of a child the prima fancy  presumption be that it be make as a advancement for that child dyer v dyer Cox  finch v finch Ves Glaister v hewer Ves grey v grey Swanst see Rumboll v  Rumboll Eden tailor v tailor atk Stileman v ashdown atk S c ante pole v pole  Ves so where the father purchase a estate in the joint name of himself and  child scoop v Scroop Ch can back v Andrews vern dyer v dyer Cox see Glaister v  hewer Ves swift v Davis east n or in the name of his child and a trustee  Lampugh v Lampugh p W and in order to repel this presumption in favour of a  child it must be show that the father at the time of the purchase intend it  for his own benefit Murless v franklin Swanst Prankerd v Prankerd I S S finch  v finch Ves for subsequent act of the father will not enable he to convert the  advancement into a beneficial purchase for himself in Murless v franklin  Swanst Elliot v Elliot Ch can woodman v Morrel Freem it be say by Lord Eldon  in Murless v franklin that possession take the father at the time of the  purchase will amount to evidence of his intention to take for his own benefit  Swanst but see contra tailor v tailor atk mumma v mumma vern Lampugh v Lampugh  p W redington v redington ride p c see grey v grey Swanst Stileman v ashdown  atk a purchase by a grandfather in the name of his grandson have be hold a  advancement of the grandson ebrand v dancer Ch can see Lloyd v read p W so  purchase make by a husband in the name of his wife Glaister v hewer Ves rider  v Kidder Ves kingdom v bridge vern back v Andrews ib see Watts v Thomas p W  and note to that case in the that edit in Mr hargrave copy of ambler in the  British museum there be the follow note upon this passage in his own  handwriting probable this be a misprint or at least the reporter mistake for  result trust be except from the stat by the that section but this be not the  only inaccuracy for Lord Hardwicke be make to mention copyhold with freehold  as if both be within the act whereas the former be not so the probability  therefore seem to be that Lord Hardwicke say that result trust of freehold be  within the exception of the act and that copyhold be not within at all Mr  Hargrave then refer to a report of the principal case by c I de grey hargrave  ms num page which be as follow they I e Harris and bowl insist that by the  custom they ought to take for their own benefit in their answer the Lord  chancellor hold it a result trust for price and that the custom of the manor  but direct the legal estate another question be between the heir and the  executor who shall take as occupant Lord chancellor seem to think that g as to  occupancy go no further than the stat of fraud which do not extend to copyhold  and that the reserve the equity of redemption to the heir will not change the  nature of the estate see Lampugh v Lampugh p W gascoigne v Thwing vern Lloyd v  spillet atk Sugd vend the bill be file by the heir at law of c price decree  inter all and a question be make in the cause relate to the right of the say  copyhold premise his lordship do declare that the say copyhold estate ought to  be consider as a result trust by operation of law for the say c price