case winter against LOVEDURR copyhold land be parcel of the demesne of the  manor S c salk S c comb S c Carth S c Mod S c holt S c ld ray S c Freem S c  comy Rep ejectment special verdict that the land in the declaration be  customary land modern report er p part of the manor of g demisable time out of  mind by copy of courtroll for life or life at the will of the lord accord to  the custom of the manor that George Pawlett Esq be seize of the say manor in  fee and have issue Edward Pawlett that the seven of January in the nine year  of James the first George Pawlett by deed indent between he and Elizabeth his  wife on the first part Hugh worth of the second and Dorothy worth his daughter  on the three part in consideration of a marriage to he have between Edward  Pawlett and Dorothy worth and of a portion to be pay convey the say manor and  diverse other land in b and S to the use of himself for life then to Edward  Pawlett in tail remainder to he and his own right heir with this proviso  whereon the question depend that it shall be lawful for the say George Pawlett  during his natural life and after his decease to the say Elizabeth his wife  during her life by their several deed indent to demise the say land or any  part thereof either in possession for one two or three life or for the term of  thirty year or for any other term or number of year determinable on one two or  three life or in reversion for one or two life or for modern report the term  of thirty year or for any other term or number determinable on one or two life  so as the say demise shall not be make of any ancient demesne land parcel of  the premise or of any other land which for the space of seven year last pass  have be use as the demesne land of the manor and so as the ancient rend be  reserve they find that the marriage between Edward and Dorothy take effect  that Edward Pawlett have issue four daughter and no son videlicet mary whether  Sarah and Katherine that mary marry James Glassebrook who be the lessors of  the plaintiff then they find that George Pawlett by indenture the twenty of  march in the eleven year of Charles the first between he and Robert  blanchflower recite that Richard blanchflower hold the land in question by  copy of courtroll for his own life and the life of Joan his wife grant the  same in consideration of sixty pound to Robert blanchflower from and after the  death forfeiture or other determination of the estate of Richard blanchflower  and Joan his wife for the term of thirty year they find the marriagemoney pay  that at the time of the say demise these land be copyhold land parcel of the  say manor of g they find that there be a capital message and diverse acre of  land parcel of that manor which be always hold in demesne then they find the  death of George Pawlett Elizabeth Pawlett Richard blanchflower and Joan his  wife that Robert blanchflower enter and be possess of these land by virtue of  which he assign to the defendant Lovedurr and then conclude special Eyre  justice the case be but this a tenant for life remainder in tail of a manor  with power in the tenant in tail of the manor to make lease in reversion for  one or two life or for the term of thirty year or any number of year  determinable on one or two life so that such demise be not of the ancient  demesne land render the ancient rend then the tenant for life make a lease of  a copyhold estate of the say manor for thirty year to commence after the  determination of the estate of two person who life be then upon it whereupon  the general question be whether this be a good lease accord to the say power  which subdivide itself into two question first whether it warrant a lease in  reversion for thirty year absolute second admit it do whether this power  warrant a lease of copyhold estate Eyre and Turton justice this power warrant  a lease for thirty year absolute because the word themselves be express and  can without force be otherwise modern report understand for the lease in  reversion be to be for one or two life or for thirty year or for any number of  year determinable on one or two life which be three distinct limitation  different from each other and so different from finchs case a the  reduplication of the particle or make they plain distinct and if the second  paragraph shall be connect with the three then the particularize of the thirty  year will be to no purpose because include in the general term of any number  of year then as to the second question we be of opinion that this power do not  warrant the lease of the copyhold land be restrain with a   modern report er p  the ita quod such demise be not make of the demesne land because the copyhold  land be part of the demesne land of a manor the freehold be in the lord and  the copyholder only tenant at will and therefore if the lord alien his manor  there needs no more attornment of the copyholder than of the tenant at will b  the lord have as much the demesne of a copyhold as of that which be in his own  hand actual c wherefore by reason of this last point judgement ought to be  give for the plaintiff Rokeby justice I concur that the lease be not good but  from different premise for as to the question whether copyhold land be include  within the demesne land I agree it to be so not because copyhold land be in  law within the demesne land of the manor for in vulgar speech sometime they be  not so but because to understand they otherwise will contradict the intention  of the party which without doubt be not to destroy the copyhold as such lease  for year will do then as to the other question a absolute lease for thirty  year in reversion be not warrant by this power because then a better lease may  be make in reversion than possession if lease shall be make of copyhold in  this manner the manor will be destroy which can never be intend and all power  ought to be take strict accord to the case of Slocomb v Hawkins d and  therefore judgement for the plaintiff holt chief justice the lease be not good  for the reason of Eyre and Turton justice two question have be make first  whether this term be within the power second whether these land be within the  exception or qualification of the power as to the first I be of opinion that  the term be warrant by the power which depend on the pen thereof wherein by  way of explication it be necessary to take notice modern report what be mean  by a lease in reversion first in the large sense it be take for any lease for  year to commence in going to be or at a day to come as Inst reversion be there  take in opposition to possession but that be not mean in this case because  then he may make a lease to commence fifty or sixty year hence and therefore  this power must be take accord to the common and second signification of the  word which be a lease to commence from and after the determination of a  present interest then in be as suppose there be a lease for life or year then  in be and a lease for year be grant on the determination of that estate this  be a lease in reversion but the lease in reversion in this power be not only  to be take in this sense because it not only extend to a lease for year in  reversion but also to a lease for life in reversion or a concurrent lease with  the estate in be so that these word in reversion have two sense as to the year  it be a future interest as to the life a concurrent lease but now as to the  lease as this power be pen a lease in reversion for thirty year absolute be  good and be not within the reason of Finchs case a nay there be a distinction  in that case which confirm my opinion and the plain meaning of the word can be  no other the same word be use in the power both with respect to the lease in  possession and reversion in both which there be three distinct power perfect  different from each other and repeat the word for whole disjoin the former and  the latter part the king v Lewis b and broker v Robotham cite in that case be  pertinent to this purpose and prove that subsequent word shall not control  general precedent one but that they shall both be construe as general and  independent clause but then as to the second point I hold these land to be  within the exception or qualification of the power for all the demesne land  general be except and without doubt copyhold land be parcel of the demesne c  it will have be unreasonable that the tenant for life shall have power to  destroy the manor for ever the meaning here be to have power to make estate  renew the ancient rend copyhold need no such power because custom enable you  to demise they but it be object that if the copyhold land shall be construe to  be exempt then there be nothing leave for the power to work upon for accord to  the power the ancient rend must be reserve and a manor only consist of demesne  and service and if b Litt sect   light a c cro James   d Yelv cro James a   b  lev c   modern report er p you pare away the modern report demesne by the  exception you have nothing for the power to work upon because a rend can be  reserve out of the service but as to that I answer there be other land out of  which a rend may be reserve as the land in b c and even as to the manor the  power be not whole void for he may thereby lose the rend and service though no  rend can be reserve thereout for where a man reserve a power to make lease of  diverse land and tenement and other thing and there be a qualification in the  power which extend not to all comprehend in the power that part of the power  may be execute without pursue the qualification so be roll Abr a man make a  settlement to the use of himself for life with remainder over and a power to  make lease reserve so much rend as be reserve two year before the make of this  settlement the man make a lease of land not demise for twenty year before and  this lease be hold good and to be within the power and that he may reserve  what rend he will because though the qualification be in general word yet it  can only be applicable to such land as be demise on the authority of this case  be determine another in Hilary term in the twentyseventh and twentyeighth year  of Charles the second in hale time walker v walker a a man make a settlement  of land and also of tithe with a proviso of make lease in possession or  reversion of all or every part of the premise reserve five shilling rend for  every acre he make a lease of the tithe reserve about five pound ayear the  question be whether this be a good lease of the tithe within the power and  hold that a lease of the tithe be good without reserve any rend at all because  the general word of the qualification shall be restrain to that only to which  it be applicable so in this case though the qualification can operate on a  lease of the rend and service because no rend can be reserve thereout yet the  power itself may operate thereon and the qualification be extend to those  other thing to which it be applicable therefore judgement be give for the  plaintiff