atkins case smite v baker in the lord of the manor of Martock in somersetshire  grant the reversion of copyhold land within the say manor to Gabriel baker  decease to hold the same to the say Gab baker John brown and W baker from and  after the death of mary palmer the bill state that by the custom of the manor  every purchaser have a absolute power to sell surrender or otherwise dispose  of the say copyhold premise this custom be admit by the defendant John baker  in case the purchaser make a surrender previous to such disposition and that  neither of the life therein name unless purchaser have such life be by the say  custom to enjoy successive as they be name in the copy of the court roll this  custom be deny by baker in case the purchaser make no such disposition as  aforesaid Gabriel marry the plaintiff Joan with who he receive a marriage  portion but upon who he make no settlement after the marriage he make his will  without have previous make a surrender and thereby give the residue of his  estate either real or personal possession and reversion to his wife the  testator die and then mary palmer die Joan the widow marry the plaintiff smith  it be decree that a equitable interest pass to Joan and that she shall enjoy  the premise during the life of John baker who be the survivor mention in the  say lease Reg lib b fol vide greenwood v hare Charles Rep how v how vern  clarke v Danvers Charles can Rundle v Rundle vern anon Freem Benger v draw p W  dyer v dyer Cox p W note wither v wither Amb July the that a buy a copyhold  estate for his own and two life in the manor of Martock where the custom be  that whoever purchase in it the estate shall go in succession and by his will  devise all his estate real and personal to his wife the custom in the manor of  Martock that whoever purchase in it the estate shall go in succession the  husband of the plaintiff purchase for his own and two life and by his will  after give some few legacy he in general word devise all his estate real and  personal in possession or reversion to his wife it be insist for the plaintiff  that by these general word she be entitle to this copyhold estate and that the  court will supply the want of a surrender and notwithstanding the custom of  this manor as the purchaser pay the whole purchasemoney the other two person  be to be consider as mere nominal and that there be a imply trust for himself  though he purchase know of the custom of this manor and therefore have a right  to devise it clarke v Danvers Charles Cas rely on as a case in point for the  plaintiff Mr fazakerly for the defendant argue that the successor accord to  the custom of the manor be to be regard as haeredes fact and that there be  many instance where they be favour in a court of equity and a estate shall not  be take away from they by implication where they be not provide for some other  way that it can never be imagine the testator by put reversion in the plural  number have a intention by that one single letter to pass his copyhold however  literal the gentleman on the other side may extend it to carry the copyhold  Lord chancellor the husband of the plaintiff have purchase this estate though  his legal interest be not accord to the custom of the manor yet he have a  equitable interest from be the sole purchaser and it may be bring near the  case of a purchase at law of a estate descendible to the heir in the name of a  three person yet it shall descend notwithstanding for it shall be construe as  a trust for the purchaser he have advance the money the next question be  whether suppose there be not a general result trust yet as the purchaser have  make a will and devise this estate a court of equity will supply a surrender  atkins the first consideration whether these land be comprise in the will I  think they plain be where a man devise all his real and personal estate in  possession and reversion to a wife or child and have no other real estate but  the copyhold it will pass by the general word note where there be a surrender  to the use of the will or where the devise operate upon the equitable interest  the general word abovementioned will always pass copyhold land scot v Alberry  Com Rep Mod tendril v smith post vol car v ellison post vol but when there be  no surrender to the use of the will then come the question whether equity will  supply the want of a surrender in favour of the devisee for at law they  certain do not pass by the general devise see Hawkins v leigh post milbourn v  milbourn bro Charles Rep troa v down post vol but this depend upon the  circumstance of the case there be word at the outset of the will which have  not be take notice of as atkins er p to all my temporal estate which it have  please God almighty to bless I with I dispose of as follow here be a lie  intention to dispose of his whole estate and the subsequent word be general  enough to carry it his leasehold estate for year can never satisfy the word  real in the will for it be call a chattel real only as it be derive out of the  real estate the next consideration whether she be entitle to have the want of  a surrender supply as to the objection that she be not a wife unprovide for it  have not appear to I there be any settlement but even allow she have another  provision yet the husband may not think it sufficient and therefore I do not  look upon this case to be out of the common one where the court will supply  the surrender if he devise the copyhold to her it have likewise be object that  the court will not supply the surrender against a heir but this rule must be  apply sole to a heir in blood and not to a hres factus see Hawkins v leigh  post note for the defendant here be mere nominal and not even the least  relation but bare of the same name therefore I must decree for the plaintiff