case brown against dyer Freebench of copyhold Qure if dissent be toll S c post  S c holt in ejectment the question be whether if a copyholder die and his wife  have her modern report er p freebench this excrescent estate do not so take  away the dissent as if the son die before the estate actual come to he that  then the next heir to the father shall claim and whether this will not make a  possession brother a see the case of reeve v malster cro car Jones and post a  the case upon a special verdict be thus a be seize of copyhold land in fee to  he and his heir in borough English have issue two son by one venture and two  son by another venture and be so seize he in the four year of Charles the  first surrender into the hand of the lord to the use of himself and the heir  male of his body but no admittance be find and then be die the wife have the  land by free bench during her viduity then the jury find that during the life  of the wife all the child of a die without issue except the old son that then  the wife die and that after her death the old son be admit in the year that  some time after be mortgage the land in question to the plaintiff for one  hundred pound that the mortgagor die and in his son and heir the defendant be  admit the plaintiff not receive his money accord to the condition bring a  ejectment and the question upon this special verdict be first whether a by the  surrender car be tenant in tail or whether there be no admittance upon the  surrender the estate in he be change for if it be then the issue in tail will  avoid the mortgage second admit there be no entail in the case yet be land in  borough English whether the reversion after the death of a do not descend to  his young son by the second venture and if so the old son who be mortgagor can  never by the rule of law make himself heir to his brother of the halfblood or  whether the young son by the second venture all be dead in the lifetime of the  feme who have a freebench which be a continuance of the estate of her baron so  that there can be no possession brother whether the mortgagor who be heir at  law and in borough English to his father have not a right to the estate this  case be argue by king for the plaintiff and Chesshyre for the defendant but to  the first point the court do unanimous resolve that without admittance on the  surrender he do continue seize in fee as before for the lord can otherwise  have no remedy for his fine c accord to cro et as to the second point the  court be divide but they think that on the authority of clement and Scudamour  case in this court in Hilary term in the second year of queen whether that the  heir of the young son shall have the land but they order this point to be  argue in the Hilary term follow the court give judgement for the plaintiff and  holt chief justice deliver the opinion of his brother videlicet that the old  son be in of the feesimple for there be no admittance upon the surrender which  be make car I and therefore the surrender do continue seize as he be before  Powell justice say there can be no admittance by implication to the second  point be say that the wife have this customary freehold after the death of her  child and she die then the old son shall take as heir to the father accord to  estate at commonlaw and he say that where the custom be doubtful it be the  best way to follow the rule of the commonlaw as this court do in the case of  clement v Scudamour