case sir harry peachy versus duke of somerset S c wh t l c ed p follow  protector loan   v grice Q b d June in court Lord Macclesfield Eq Abr pl stram  S c wms S c cite post vern S p a court of equity will not assist a copyholder  against a forfeiture which be find such at law unless in case where a  compensation can be make the plaintiff father be a copyholder in fee under the  duke of Somerset of some copyhold land of about or pound per and and make a  surrender thereof to the use of himself for life with remainder to his first  and other son on his marriage in tail male with remainder to himself in fee  but it do not appear that there be ever any admittance on the surrender in the  father lifetime the father be likewise seize of freehold land adjoin the say  copyhold land wherein be some quarry of stone the father in his lifetime make  some lease for year of this copyhold land not warrant by the custom of the  manor and likewise carry on his work from the say quarry of stone out of his  freehold land into the say copyhold land but have no licence for make the say  lease or for work the say quarry in the copyhold land after his death in the  great storm which happen in the year several of the tree stand in the copyhold  land be blow down and the top of all other precedent in chancery er p break  off so that now the plaintiff who be just come of age cut off lop the top of  several other of the tree and some he quite cut down to precedent in chancery  make the avenue to his house the more uniform and regular it be likewise prove  in the cause that he have make some enclosure in the copyhold land whereby the  same which before lie open and uninclosed be separate and divide from the  other and these thing he have frequent do notwithstanding repeat admonition  from the defendant and his agent to the contrary it appear in the cause that  the plaintiff who be a person of consideration have encourage other of the  copyhold tenant to take the same liberty and express great contempt for the  lord of the manor with respect to his authority over his copyholder upon which  the defendant bring his ejectment and have a verdict at law as for a  forfeiture and to be relieve against these forfeiture the plaintiff now bring  this bill and the only question be whether these be such sort of forfeiture as  a court of equity can or ought to interpose in by way of relief it be agree  that for nonpayment of rend or fine or such like thing where a value may be  set on they and a compensation make to the lord of the manor for any laches in  point of time it can it be likewise agree that any forfeiture commit by a  copyholder for life will not bind the person in remainder but in the principal  case as there be no admittance upon the father surrender it be the same thing  as if no surrender at all have be make and that the copyholder who make such  surrender continue to all intent and purpose both with respect to the lord and  with respect to stranger the same as if no such surrender at all have be make  that he be to do suit and service and to pay his rend to the lord and may  maintain a action of trespass against any stranger notwithstanding such  surrender and as if none at all have be make precedent in chancery it be  likewise agree that condition in law as those in the principal case be allow  to bind infant as well as person of full age and that no notice be requisite  to be give of they though if it be necessary here be express notice give the  plaintiff to forbear several of those act and therefore as to the principal  point it be urge that if any act whatsoever can be a voluntary forfeiture  these must be such and that a court of equity ought not to relieve against  they that the ancient rule for the jurisdiction of this court be confine to  those sort of case that be to say to fraud accident and trust and this be by  no mean within the reason and meaning of any of they Eq Abr pl Inst that no  compensation can be make to the lord for what have be do in this case that  though it be true in all case whatsoever some sort of compensation can be make  yet not such a one within the meaning of that rule wherein compensation have  be allow that therefore this differ exceed from the case of forfeiture for  nonpayment of rend of fine or other pecuniary duty and if the court can  interpose in this case so they may with as much reason when a tenant for life  or year of freehold land shall take upon he to levy a fine or make a feoff in  fee for in these case it may be say that in some case a compensation may be  make to the person in remainder or reversion but that be never attempt nor can  it be so much as pretend that the court will relieve against forfeiture of  this sort Vid ante post wms post S p affirm by the chancellor that the reason  of the forfeiture be in consideration of the injury do to the lord that be in  the present case those lease at commonlaw be without licence may in time be  make use of as evidence to prove it a freehold that the lop and top of the  tree for ever spoil the growth of they and prevent their come to be timber  precedent in chancery that the carry on the quarry to the copyhold land be the  same thing as if it have be first open therein which no copyholder can do that  the enclose the copyhold land one from another may in time destroy the  evidence of their be copyhold as it destroy the ancient boundary thereof and  so it will be to convert meadow or pasture ground into arable that no case can  be put where the court have relieve in case of this nature that where a lease  be make of church land under a proviso not to assign without licence this  court will not relieve against the forfeiture as it can not alter the term on  which the lessor himself think proper to part with his land or force a  precedent in chancery er p tenant upon he in spite of his tooth indeed if this  be only by way of covenant on the part of the lessee it may possible be  otherwise Ch Rep e contra that in the principal case they be in possession of  the law and have recover a verdict and to take it away from they will be to  alter the establish course of the law and to make a new one which they suppose  a court of equity have no power to do and the case of Thomas content porter  Chan Cas be say to be monstrous that the lord who have upon two trial at law  recover verdict shall not only be oblige to account for the mesne profit but  also pay cost that this be not a application to be relieve against the rigour  of the law or to relax the law but direct to make a new law and the plaintiff  by bring this bill have admit the law to be direct against he otherwise he may  make use of it as his defence at law that it will be of the utmost consequence  to lord if the plaintiff shall be relieve in this case for then it will be but  endeavour to keep these thing secret for a considerable while and in time they  will precedent in chancery grow into a evidence of freehold or if the tenant  shall be find out it will be only bring his bill here and all will be safe my  Lord chancellor be clear of opinion that there be no foundation for equity to  interpose that it will be to alter the nature of the tenure and the term  whereby copyhold subsist that if this be a forfeiture at law a court of equity  have nothing to do with it and that it be like the case of a feoff make or  fine levy by a particular tenant against which there can be no relief wms post  ante send vide ante that copyholder be but tenant at will though it be accord  to the custom of the manor that this entire differ from the case of a  forfeiture for nonpayment of rend or nonpayment of a fine for there the estate  be but in the nature of a security for those sum and the lord may be  recompense in damage and cost that to make a lease for year without licence be  a forfeiture as it be a determination of his will and though the lord shall  refuse to grant such licence yet the tenant have no remedy nor will this court  compel the tenant to grant such licence that though these copyhold be mend by  time and be in the nature of a inheritance yet still the tenant be oblige to  observe the law and custom to which they be subject that these custom be in  the nature of a limitation of a estate which determine upon the breach of they  that unless there be some equitable circumstance in this case this court can  interpose which will be to repeal and destroy the law note in this case sir  harry peachy in on his marriage surrender these copyhold land to the several  use in his marriage settlement which be to the use of himself for life  remainder to his first and other son successive in tail male remainder to  himself in fee and he have issue a son not yet of age who be complainant with  he in this suit but there precedent in chancery have be no admittance at all  upon this surrender for want of which it be clear hold that sir harry peachy  continue and be to be consider as absolute tenant to the duke of the copyhold  land for which be cite cro James and Bulst and Yelv that consequent sir harry  be but trustee for his son of the inheritance of those land but the whole  inheritance quoad the lord be in sir harry and any act of forfeiture do by he  will bind the inheritance because there must always be some tenant to answer  for the whole for if there have be a admittance of the father for life and of  the son in remainder because they come in as it be by two distinct grant from  the lord himself and therefore the act of one will not bind or affect the  other but till there be a admittance on such surrender the lord be not bind to  take any notice of it but the tenant continue to all intent and purpose the  same estate that he have before and the rather because that he have no mean to  compel he to come in and be admit on such surrender and whether the son of sir  harry will ever apply to be admit on the surrender maybe uncertain and  consequent till he do sir harry be the only tenant the lord can take notice of  and his act will bind and affect the whole inheritance therefore if he shall  commit treason it will be a forfeiture to the lord of the whole inheritance  and so it will be if any other trustee of a copyhold Qure Vid Eq Abr the first  marginal note bale v England ante hard Eq Abr and the lord will not be bind by  the trust nor will the land in his hand precedent in chancery er p be subject  thereto for the Cestuique trust be not tenant nor can any act of his either of  treason felony or otherwise charge or affect the copyhold land indeed if he  shall bring his bill in this court against his father and the duke to compel a  admittance pursuant to the say surrender and settlement it may come then to be  consider how far this forfeiture of his father will bind he but at present  nothing of this appear in the case nor can the court take notice of it but in  regard of that precedent in chancery surrender the bill as to he be dismiss  without prejudice and as to sir harry it be dismiss absolute but a injunction  to stay his take out execution on the judgement in ejectment be grant because  it be insist that even a t law several of those act be no forfeiture and  therefore a trial at bar be direct on a new ejectment to be bring to wait the  event thereof in this case be cite a case of Cox and Higford vern S c before  Lord chancellor Harcourt where the court will not relieve against a forfeiture  of a copyholder even for permissive waste for let a copyhold house tumble down  for want of repair but in that case the reason be because it be a absolute  refusal to repair it for several year together after repeat admonition and  presentment of the jury of the waste and therefore it be equal to voluntary  waste and the case of edmore and craven ibidem vern S c cite where a Quaker  refuse to swear fealty the lord seize as for a forfeiture yet upon the  circumstance of the case the court give relief likewise be cite roll Abr Owen  Leon vent   light and the case of Nash and the countess of Derby vern S c Eq  Abr pl before Lord keeper wright where relief be against a forfeiture for cut  down timber by a copyholder but the reason of that case be because the timber  be employ about the repair of the copyhold and there be only a mistake whether  the steward or woodman shall set out the timber note the principal case hold  three day and be solemnly debate but as to the principal point whether this  court can relieve against a voluntary forfeiture my Lord chancellor be clear  that it can not and that it will be even to alter and repeal thievery law of  copyhold which though now support by custom be at first establish by act of  parliament as all other part of the commonlaw be till the record of they come  to be lose though against a forfeiture for permissive waste only relief may be  give wms maxim in Eq Max c S p Max c S p Chan can S p post e contra Eq Abr pl  obiter and not the point charge in that case