case north v earl and countess of strafford see Fraser v mason Q b d Lord  chancellor king Eq can ab pl a bill be bring by a lord of a manor to recover a  fine for a copyhold on a suggestion that the defendant be admit by attorney  but sometime pretend the attorney have no authority to take such admittance  the defendant answer as to the part and demurrer as to relief the demurrer  hold good the plaintiff north father be lord of the manor of d in Suffolk of  which sir Henry Johnson hold several parcel of copyhold by several quitrents  and have be admit to the same and sir Henry die these copyhold descend to his  daughter and heir the countess of Strafford whereupon Mr Draycott the Lord  Strafford agent write a letter to the agent of Mr north the father lord of the  manor desire Mr north will admit the countess to these copyhold accord Mr  north admit the countess by one Mr Bawdrey who be also agent for Mr north her  attorney as tenant to the copyhold premise for which several fine be set  amount to pound sometime after this Mr north the then lord of the manor die  leave the plaintiff Mr north his son and heir and also executor who bring this  peer William bill against the earl and countess of Strafford to recover the  fine set upon the admittance and likewise to be pay the quitrents that be in  arrear in the plaintiff father lifetime as also those that have incur since  his death the bill further charge that the land out of which the quitrents  issue be not know be by great length of time and by the tenant have enjoy  those promiscuous with other land obscure with respect to the boundary but  that the defendant have in their custody or power some write or paper manifest  the say boundary also that the defendant the Lord Strafford do now deny that  he give any authority to his agent Mr Draycott or to Mr Bawdrey that his  countess shall be admit by Mr Bawdrey as her attorney the defendant the earl  and countess of Strafford as to that part of the bill which seek to compel  they to pay the arrear of the quitrent or which seek any relief touch the same  demurrer for that the plaintiff have his remedy at law for these arrear of  quitrent either by distress or action of debt on the statute of h the  defendant do likewise put in another separate demurrer as to such part of the  bill as seek to compel they to pay the copyhold fine or which pray any relief  touch the same against the demurrer it be urge that the plaintiff remedy be  bring per in equity by way of commission to set out the boundary of the  copyhold which be express peer William er p charge by the bill to have be  obscure through length of time and by sir Henry Johnson have enjoy those  copyhold promiscuous peer William with other land and that the plaintiff can  not ha e any remedy by distress and avowry without particularize the very land  out of which each rend issue and that have be settle to be a good equity and a  sufficient reason for sue in this court for a quitrent of small value that  this objection be strengthen by the answer of the earl himself set forth that  he do not know the particular land that be copyhold which make it necessary a  commission shall go so that if this demurrer hold the plaintiff will appear to  have a plain duty due to he and yet will be destitute of all remedy whereby to  recover it also with respect to the admittance if the lord shall sue for the  fine the defendant may insist they never consent to such admittance and in  case the plaintiff be to sue for the forfeiture on account of the defendant  not have come in to be admit shall the courtrolls be produce the lord will  hardly from they be encourage to proceed against the defendant for a  forfeiture in not come in to be admit but notwithstanding this objection the  court allow the demurrer the Lord chancellor say he have not know this case  before of a demurrer as to relief that have there be no demurrer the court on  the hear will have relieve ut here the defendant have not demurrer as to any  discovery but as to relief only so that upon allow the demurrer the plaintiff  be at liberty if he shall think the defendant have not answer the whole bill  to except as to any part or may amend his bill and enforce the defendant to  discover his lady admittance that the plaintiff may proceed and make  proclamation to oblige the defendant lady to come in and be admit and have at  law a better remedy for his copyhold fine and arrear of peer William quitrent  than this court can give he for he may distrain or bring debt for the arrear  of quitrent due to he as executor and distrain for the arrear of quitrent  incur since his father death vide holder v Chambury post and with regard to  the fine he say either the countess have be admit or she have not if she have  the plaintiff may bring a action of debt or a indebitatus assumpsit for the  fine provide it be a reasonable fine as he suppose it to be if the defendant  have not be admit the plaintiff may cause proclamation to be make and on a  default after three proclamation may seize the copyhold as forfeit for which  reason his lordship allow the demurrer it be only as to relief Reg lib b fol  note with respect to the copyhold fine the plaintiff may bring his action at  law for it and need not as it shall seem in his declaration set forth the  particular of the land hold of he by the defendant by copy of courtroll only  that the defendant wife hold certain land within his manor c but as to the  quitrents it seem the plaintiff must either in his action or avowry show the  particular land and in case the defendant in their answer set forth that they  do not know where these land lie or what they be the plaintiff be entitle to a  commission to set they out and then the plaintiff be entitle to this relief  qure whether the defendant demurrer as to all relief be good vide cook v Foley  l vern duke of Bridgwater v Edward bro p c Benson v baldwin atk duke of Leeds  v Powell ves duke of Leeds v corporation of new Radnor bro c c this form be  adopt in Barker v dacie Ves Hodgkin v Longden Ves and Todd v gee Ves but the  modern practice be to demurrer general baker v Mellish Ves Gordon v Simpkinson  Ves pit v short Ves William v steward mere attorneygeneral v brown swan Robert  v Clayton Anst peer William er p