case dunn v green follow ex part school board for London Ch d Lord chancellor  Macclesfield a be a copyholder in tail the lord grant the freehold of the  copyhold to he in fee the copyhold though entail be extinct a copyholder in  tail accept a grant from the lord of the manor of the freehold and feesimple  to he and his heir and die indebt by bind wherein the heir be bind and on a  bill bring by the bondcreditor for satisfaction out of the asset peer William  er p leave by the obligor the question be whether the premise be asset by  descent and liable to the bind peer William the Lord chancellor after time  take to consider of it thus deliver his opinion unless it be express find that  the custom of the manor allow of entail then this be a fee conditional and  plain merge by the grant of the freehold in fee but suppose the custom of the  manor do warrant entail yet the copyhold be extinguish because in the eye of  the law that be but a estate at will and must be merge by the grant of the  freehold the premise by such grant be sever from the manor consequent he  custom of the manor can corroborate the legal estate at will the copyholder  can hold of himself and the copyhold though entail be swallow up in the great  estate of the freehold and as the tenant after such time as he take the grant  do not himself continue a copyholder so his son on the descent of the freehold  be likewise no copyholder which may be say from son to son ad infinitum  moreover if the entail of the copyhold be not extinguish it will be a  perpetuity since the only proper way of bar the entail of a copyhold be by  recovery in the lord court but after such severance as in the present case no  recovery can be suffer in the lord court another point in this case be that  the obligor in the bind the satisfaction whereof be seek by this peer William  suit have in his lifetime make a mortgage of some land of which he be seize in  fee for more than the value and the mortgagee offer the land in sale the  purchaser will not proceed unless the heir of the mortgagor who be also heir  of the obligor will join in the conveyance and the heir have pound of the  mortgage money for join whereupon the question be whether this pound be asset  Lord chancellor this be not asset have be pay to buy off the obstinacy of the  heir and not for the value of his equity which be worth nothing see Chan Rep  and vern Parker v turner where the Lord chancellor jefferys deliver the like  opinion in the like case Qure autem if a be a copyholder in tail remainder to  b in fee and a take a grant of the freehold from the lord to he and his heir  and die without issue be not b in who there be once a vest remainder in fee of  the copyhold premise entitle to the same it have be since determine that where  the custom do not prescribe any particular mode of bar the entail of a  copyhold a surrender although only to use of the will will be sufficient for  that purpose without a custom car v singer ves more v more ves but a custom to  bar by surrender may be concurrent with a custom to bar by recovery everall v  Smalley will and stram S c do v trubi Bla Rep do v Ossingbrooke bing with  respect to the qure make in the note above it seem that the remainderman can  have no equity against the tenant in tail who have power to bar the remainder  by one mode or the other upon the principle of Cann v Cann vern so Challoner v  Murhall Ves Jun Fletcher v to lift Ves so in black v black before the court of  exchequer July that Robert black the elder devise a lease for three life hold  of the bishop of bath and well in trust for his son Robert black the young and  the heir male of his body and in case he shall die without issue for the  plaintiff his other son in like manner Robert black the son surrender the old  lease and take a new lease for three life to he and his heir allwhich be do  without the concurrence of the trustee under the will Robert black the son die  without issue have by will dispose of the say issue the bill be file to have  the benefit of the new lease insist that the surrender of the old lease and  the take of the new one be not sufficient to bar the limitation to the  plaintiff under the father will and that those claim under Robert the son  ought to be declare trustee of the new lease for the plaintiff But the court  be of opinion that Robert the son be tenant n tail a court of equity can not  have call upon he to have declare such a trust in his lifetime and that there  be no strong equity against his representative and dismiss the bill Cox black  v Luxton coop S c t r and S c state in Campbell v Sandys Sch Lef and see Lloyd  v Johnes Ves peer William er p