case avenant Hawkins a infant by his next friend plaintiff george leigh  William Hawkins and Elizabeth Hawkins infant defendant November the that a  give all his land unsettle and all his good and chattel to his wife for life  and afterward to his young child in such manner as she shall think fit to  dispose of the same testator die seize of freehold land and customary message  which be unsettle and not surrender to the use of his will the land settle be  only freehold natural the land unsettle must be the same and therefore the  copyhold land do not pass Ebenezer and mary Hawkins have issue the plaintiff  their old son and heir and the defendant William and mary Hawkins the father  make his will in this manner as for my worldly estate and good I dispose  thereof as follow atkins vide although in regard a great part of my land be  already settle and the great tenderness and affection and prudent management I  have always find in my wife Catherine for the kind return and acknowledgement  therefore I give all my land unsettle and all my good and chattel of what  nature or kind soever to my say wife for life and afterward to my young child  in such manner as sheshall think fit to dispose of the same the plaintiff  father die seize of freehold land in feesimple and also seize to he and his  heir of customary message hold of the manor of h and b and be unsettle land  and the latter not surrender to the use of his will the bill bring for a  account and that the plaintiff interest in the several estate may be ascertain  and settle atkins er p Lord chancellor the only question be as to the copyhold  estate whether it pass by the will and this must depend upon circumstance  where there be a general devise of land and there be no surrender of the  copyhold land to the use of his will the construction at law be that they do  not pass by the will especial where there be other word which may answer the  intention of the testator mention in the will for copyhold land be not proper  the subject of a devise as they pass by the surrender and not by the will  Allen v Poulton Ves milbourn v milbourn bro Charles Rep tread v down post vol  see ex part caswell post I do not think the outset of the will my worldly  estate and good will carry it further than the subsequent word all my land  unsettle and all my good c for as the land settle be only freehold natural the  land unsettle must be of the same kind therefore I be of opinion upon the word  of the will the copyhold land will not pass it have be say a will be  sufficient to pass a equity in copyhold land as well as a equity in freehold  land though there shall be no surrender to the use of a will and the  observation be just see car v ellison post vol but that be not the present  case for here there be more than a equity because the copyhold land actual  descend upon the son as heir to his father it be the general rule of this  court that they will not supply the defect of a surrender of copyhold estate  even in favour of a wife or young child to the disinherison of a heir where he  be unprovide for in the case of chapman v Gibson bro Charles Rep most of the  case on this subject be collect by that and the case of pike v white bro  Charles Rep it appear that equity will supply the want of a surrender in  favour of a wife and child against the heir though not provide for by the  testator if otherwise provide for but the same reason do not seem to apply if  the heir be total unprovide for the reader be refer to the master of the roll  argument in the former of the above case and to note Cox p W also bank v  Densham post vol but this word disinherison be not mere confine to a heir who  be bar of his descent for if he be provide for by settlement or any other way  he can be say to be disinherit but here I do not see any provision at all for  the heir I do therefore declare that the plaintiff be entitle to the copyhold  land in question the same not pass by his father will