case parker against kett refer to bridge v Garrett l r c p l r c p the deputy  of the steward of a manor may by write under his hand authorize a person to  receive the surrender of a copyhold estate to the use of the will of the a  vent S c keb b cro car c the judgement therefore be affirm S c ld ray modern  report er p surrender out of court for although a deputy can make a deputy  general he may authorize another to do any particular act within the limit of  his power as deputy for the steward may authorize another to take such a  surrender and it be essential to the character of a deputy that he shall have  as extensive a power as his principal S c ld ray S c comy S c salk S c salk S  c holt in ejectment of land in the county of Norfolk upon the demise of the  defendant kett and not gild plead a case be make by consent and it be this the  land in question be former the copyhold inheritance of c kett who by his will  devise the same to modern report Elizabeth his wife for life and after her  decease to Charles kett his son and to the heir of his body and if he die  under age without issue the remainder to his own right heir a by write under  the hand and seal of the lord of the manor whereof the premise be parcel be  constitute steward of the say manor to exercise the say office of steward by  himself or sufficient deputy a make one Osman clerk deputysteward who by write  under his hand make two other person deputy to he to the intent to receive a  surrender from c kett the father to the use of the say will with power to they  two or either of they to receive the say surrender one of who come to the say  c kett then sick in his bed and receive his surrender c kett die at the next  court of the manor this surrender be present by the homage and receive  Elizabeth the wife be admit copyhold tenant accord to the will the question be  whether this surrender receive by one under authority of Osman clerk the  deputysteward be a good surrender this have be argue several time at the bar  and this term per totan curium that as this case stand the surrender be a good  surrender be unanimous resolve and two question be make first whether the say  person appoint by Osman clerk the deputysteward have a good and sufficient  authority to receive the surrender second in case the authority be defective  whether that defect be not by intent and construction of law or other  subsequent act of the defendant cure and help and as to that matter holt chief  justice who deliver the opinion of the court argue thus I be of opinion the  say person derive a authority by write under the hand of the deputysteward be  sufficient empower to receive this surrender and I go upon this ground that  Osman clerk be deputy of the steward be thereby invest with all the power and  may do all such act as his principal can do for the nature of deputation be to  convey all the power of the principal without any reservation or restriction  for as he can enlarge his deputy power by give he a great one than he have  himself so he can abridge it by reserve part to himself and this be apparent  by the case of Norton v stir a where the highsheriff constitute all  undersheriff with a proviso that he shall not serve any writ of execution  above the value of twenty pound without leave of the highsheriff and the  proviso be hold void and contrary to the deputation itself and therefore to be  reject the modern report case go further and say that if the undersheriff have  covenant or give a bind c to the highsheriff not to execute such a writ  without acquaint he therewith such covenant bind c be void this be so the  question will be whether the highsteward can empower one to receive a  surrender out of court and it be never doubt but he may and it be the constant  practice of the whole kingdom for he that be so empower act indeed under the  highsteward but not as his deputy but only to do one single act and a deputy  as have be say have equal power with his principal the highsteward here by  make a deputy have give he all his power and by consequence a power to appoint  one for a special purpose to take a surrender out of court and this be see  every day for the highsheriff who need not make a undersheriff if he will may  make his bailiff and precept to they yet if he make a undersheriff of  necessary consequence he give he power to make bailiff and precept without  acquaint he therewith and this he can a hob modern report er p do only by  virtue of his deputation and why shall not a understeward or deputysteward  have the like power but a considerable objection be make for in the case of  undersheriff be act all in the name of his principal and the deputysteward  here take no notice of his principal answer it be true the deputysheriff must  act in the name of his principal because the writ be direct to the highsheriff  and the undersheriff act under the authority and command of the writ and  therefore must act in the dame of he to who the writ be direct but here the  understeward act under his principal authority at large vide comb case b by  which it appear that be that act under another ought to act in his name and  that be good law without dispute and I agree that here Osman clerk may make  use of his principal name and it have be well but the question be whether it  be not well in his own name and sure it be upon the reason of that very case  it be a letter of attorney to make a surrender in the name of a copyholder and  the atorneys may in that case draw a surrender in the copyholder name but they  do not do that but recite their authority and say that they by virtue thereof  make a surrender and though it be they surrender yet it be not their surrender  but they do it by his authority and it be substantial though not formal for  the entry in such case be that a by b his attorney come into court and  surrender c yet be modern report make as above it be well enough though  general and legal the act of a attorney be the act of his principal and so be  the act of a deputy and therefore here on record it be not say a a attorney in  the name of b his principal do so and so but that the principal by a his  attorney c and so shall the surrender in comb case have be but be by virtue of  a authority from the principal it be hold well but in comb case the authority  be recite but that be not do in our case if it have be say here by virtue of a  authority which I have from a the highsteward I do appoint such and such to  receive the surrender it have be well accord to comb case but instead of that  be take upon himself as principal to give power to accept a surrender and yet  I hold it well enough for when one have a authority and do a act which can be  good no other way but by virtue and in pursuance of that authority it shall  rather be understand to have be by force of his authority than void though in  do the act he take no notice of his authority but where one have a interest  and a authority together and be do a act general it shall be construe in  relation to his interest and not to his authority and this be the very point  of clear case a he be seize in fee of three acre of land in capite of equal  value and make a feoff in fee of two of they to the use of his wife for life  for her jointure and of the three acre to the use of such person and person  and of such estate and estate as he shall devise by his last will and after by  his will devise the say three acre without any notice take of his power  reserve upon the feoff now if they have be three acre of land in socage and he  have make such a feoff and after devise the three acre without reference to  his power it have pass by the will because then it may either pass by virtue  of his interest by the will or his authority by the feoff but be capite land  which can not pass but by the authority because he have pass two part by act  execute this devise be construe to be a execution of his authority because  otherwise the devise have be to no purpose so in the principal case the  deputation or rather authority give by the deputy shall be intend to be by  virtue of his authority for otherwise it will be utter void and that though  the deputy take no notice of his principal in his give that power and there be  no diversity between those two case and a deputysteward modern report may hold  a court without take notice of his principal dame and it will be good either  way and if he can hold a court in his own name as deputysteward why can be  appoint another in his own name to act for he to a particular purpose without  take notice of his principal and therefore this seem a good execution of his  authority as deputy if there be no more in the case but it be object that the  person to who the surrender be make be by the write name a deputy and a deputy  can make a deputy nor can the power of deputy be more or less confine than  that of his principal and I agree there can be a deputy of a deputy nor the  power of a deputy abridge but the word b   a   modern report er p deputy in  the instrument must be only construe to show the deputy intent to empower he  only for this particular purpose and beside there be general word in the  instrument sufficient to give authority to accept a surrender   seem to I in  point though upon a penal law inflict a forfeiture of good upon any that shall  land they without agree with the collector his deputy or comptroller and the  collector make a deputy who make another with who a agreement be make which be  after adjudge good not as make with a deputy but with a deputy servant  similiter hic and suppose there be a defect in this power and it wonder re not  good to all purpose yet as this case stand be not this person a good steward  de facto as they call it as to this particular purpose and this act as good as  any act by a steward de facto and I be of opinion it will be good so too for  it be agree a steward de facto may take a surrender and a steward de facto be  in truth no steward at all for be only act as such and so do this person and  he be in fact and law no steward yet his act shall be judge sufficient in case  of a formality as here only to receive a surrender or be a instrument to pass  the estate beside there be colour of a legal authority Osman clerk be agree to  be a good deputy and take upon himself to appoint a deputy suppose it be so  which he can do no more than a undersheriff can make a undersheriff or a  bailiff make a bailiff but still it give a colour and here be the appearance  and form of a legal proceed and be be repute to have a authority and in such  case if surrender be take and duly present it will be well beyond dispute more  go very far in this case two modern report joint steward of a manor to execute  the office joint but not several and one of they hold a court at which a  copyholder be admit and it be adjudge well by the whole court of exchequer and  after that judgement affirm in the exchequer Chamber as to this point but  reverse upon another point and one alone have no more power in that case to  act without his companion than if he have not be name at all yet because there  be a colour and show of a legal court and a surrender make and present it be  hold good and the word of that book be very strong for manwood who deliver the  opinion of the court that the surrender be good take two diversity first  between surrender and admittances or grant if lord seize receive surrender and  make admittance thereupon it shall bind the party and the disseizee but if be  make a voluntary admittance or grant the disseizee shall avoid it another  diversity take be between one that have colour of right and yet have no right  and one that have neither colour nor right if one who have only such colour  hold a court and another surrender to he it be good or if the suitor make  their suit to he they shall be discharge of that service and he go further and  show what shall be sufficient to make a colourable steward as where one hold  his court without contradiction of the lord or understeward hold a court after  the death of the highsteward or if the lord clerk hold the court all these be  colourable steward and I think this person here have as much authority to do  what be do as a deputy to hold court after the death of his principal c and  the reason of the law in other case agree with this as a executor de son tort  who be but a executor de facto if be do lawful act with the good as pay of  debt in their degree it shall alter the property against the lawful executor  as if he pay just and honest debt the rightful executor shall not avoid that  payment and yet it be a act do by one that have no right it be true he be not  quit against the rightful executor but be shall maintain trover against he but  what shall be recover in damage only for so much as he have misapply and all  that he have well apply shall be abate in damage a and what be the reason of  this why because the meddle with the good be that which give the creditor  notice who be executor and bind to pay the debt and the creditor be not bind  to inquire into the executor title if there be a modern report colour and  appearance of it it suffice if executor de son tort get three hundred pound of  the testator good and pay it duly to a just creditor there the lawful executor  in my opinion shall not even maintain trover against the wrongful executor  because it be a good payment and no prejudice to the executor so here there be  no prejudice to any and it be only a act of formality cro roll pal the bishop  of ossori case there be a void a see Anonymous ante term Rep term Rep modern  report er p sentence of deprivation against he and the fee full of another who  act de facto and there can be two bishop of a diocese and the sentence of  deprivation be set aside as void yet it be resolve that all institution and  induction c by the colourable bishop be good as if do by a rightful one and  shall not the same reason hold here another case strong rather than this be  that of Leon cite at the bar my Lord Darcys case who be lord of a manor make a  steward with power to make a deputy and the steward instead of make a deputy  send his servant to hold the court and in that court a surrender be make and  though it be say there that a subsequent act of the lord amount to a  confirmation it can not avail as such if there be no copyhold tenant before  and in by surrender and admittance vide   and if it work by way of  confirmation it must have wrought upon the estate grant by the surrender to  the servant and yet that surrender be not at any real court nor can the lord  subsequent agreement amount to a grant and he be copyhold tenant no otherwise  than by the surrender to the servant and sure if a servant may hold a court to  take a surrender he may take one out of court and the lord consent after can  only make it defeasible but not give a be to his estate