bullock versus DIBLER in a ejection strong between Edward bullock plaintiff  and John Dibler defendant the case appear to be this a man be seize of a  copyhold tenement parcel of the manor of Stratfield Mortimer in the county of  Berks in right of his wife in his demesne as of fee and surrender this  copyhold tenement by himself without his wife to the use of a stranger in fee  who be admit by the lord accord the husband die the wife Popham die the heir  of the wife without any admittance enter upon the stranger and make a lease  for a year to the plaintiff upon who the defendant in right of he to who the  surrender be make reenter and adjudge that the plaintiff ought to recover and  that the surrender of the husband be not as a discontinuance against the wife  to put the heir to his plaint in nature of a sur who in vita for a  discontinuance shall not be by a deed of feoff only but by it with the livery  ensue whereby the entire feesimple be give what estate soever the feoff have  by reason of the livery where by deed of grant nothing pass but that which the  party may lawful grant and here it shall be take if the grant have be make by  the husband which pass but his estate to wit that which he may lawful grant  without prejudice to his wife but yet there be this diversity between a  surrender of a estate for life and a surrender of a estate in fee to the use  of a stranger to wit that by the one the estate drown in the lord by the  surrender and by the other it be not drown in the lord but be transfer to he  to who it be make upon which he be admit to it otherwise in the last case it  return to he who surrender and then upon the admittance he be in the per by he  who surrender and not by the lord or by the surrender make by tenant for life  he to who use it be make ought to take it of the lord and he be there in by he  and not by he who surrender and this be the common difference betwixt  customary estate for life and customary estate of inheritance and the plaint  of who in vita be give where recovery by default be against the husband and  wife and not upon the surrender of the husband for suppose the husband have  surrender mere to the lord himself yet the wife may have enter after the death  of the husband because the surrender go but to the estate which the husband  may lawful part with and therefore rather to be resemble to a grant than to a  feoff and notwithstanding that he be not admit yet he may enter and take the  profit and make a lease accord to the custom or bring a action of trespass  against he who disturb he but if the lord require his fine or his service and  Popham er p the heir refuse to do they this may be a forfeiture of his  copyhold but until lawful seize make by the lord because it belong to he the  heir may intermeddle with the possession albeit he be not admit by the lord  where it be a estate of inheritance by the custom and in this term also in  another case in the same court it be adjudge that a infant who surrender his  copybold land within age may enter at his full age without be put to any suit  for it and the first case be very well argue by one brock a puny utter  barrister of the innertemple this term for the plaintiff and it be the first  demurrer that be argue in court