atkins case Lovel versus Lovel November the surrender of copyhold estate must  have the same construction with feoff at law and other conveyance and not as a  will and if the limitation of a copyhold be so frame as by the rule of law  they be void they must take their fate and no intention can make they good  John Lovel surrender to William Lovel brother of John Lovel the copyhold  premise in question until Thomas Lovel son of Ralph Lovel and brother also of  John Lovel shall attain twentyone and after such age to the say Thomas Lovel  his heir and assign for ever sign John Lovel endorse by agreement between John  and William Lovel that the say William Lovel be to receive the rend c until  Thomas attain twentyone and then to account to he for the same but not before  I Lovel W Lovel John die the that of November without issue leave William his  old brother and heir who enjoy the say premise till the that of January when  he die Thomas the son of Ralph and brother of the plaintiff die a infant the  that of march without issue before the plaintiff be bear so that the say  Thomas Lovel decease have no brother or sister bear at his death and be then  about nine month old William Lovel decease be his heir at law likewise Thomas  Lovel the surrendee die before he attain twentyone the question be whether the  plaintiff as brother of Thomas be entitle under the surrender of John Lovel to  a account of the rend c such contingency as in the surrender never happen or  whether the defendant William Lovel decease as heir to the surrender be not  entitle to both or whether the estate be not liable to a account for the  profit and to who Mr attorney general for the plaintiff cite Borastons case    and tailor versus Biddall Mod Mr brown for the defendant cite I Leon and Mr  ford of the same side cite idle versus coke salk p W S c and cro James Lord  chancellor as this be the case of a copyhold no other construction can be make  but what arise on that kind of conveyance as to the real intention of the  surrender it be pretty difficult to maintain what the plaintiff counsel  contend for that though Thomas the infant be but four month old the surrender  intend to divest himself of the whole estate and give it in such atkins er p  atkins a manner that notwithstanding the infant die the next day it will go to  his heir though ever so remote relate to the surrender the surrender be never  perfect for in one respect the bill be bring for that purpose and upon the  circumstance of this case there be no occasion to make a strain in favour of  the plaintiff but be this as it will the word as they now stand and the legal  effect of those word must have their avail I will take it first upon the word  abstract from the memorandum it have be insist on that though Thomas the  infant die at nine month old yet the estate vest in he and that it be a  disposition of the inheritance to he immediate and only a chattel interest in  the uncle till the infant may attain his age of twentyone though he die at  nine month old as to the case cite Borastons and tailor v Biddall they be both  upon will in which there be great latitude of construction to comply with the  intention of a testator and in Borastons the principal point for it be not  mere a auxiliary argument be its be a computation by the testator for payment  of debt and tailor versus Biddall be upon a executory devise for I have a very  particular reason to look to this case in Stephens versus Stephens can tempt  Talb S c and therefore send for the record out of the treasury not true state  in the report of the case for the other point mention in the book can not  arise be determine mere upon a executory devise surrender of copyhold estate  be to be construe as deed and conveyance at commonlaw and not as a will and as  Mr ford say a spring use in a copyhold estate will be construe as a spring use  in a freehold note but copyhold estate be not within the statute of use Rigden  v vallier Ves if this have be a limitation by deed of a estate at commonlaw as  Thomas die before twentyone it can be support that the estate to William shall  continue till Thomas may have attain his age of twentyone if limitation be so  frame as by the rule of law they be void they must take their fate and no  intention can make they good to be sure there be a difference between require  a estate to support a contingent remainder in a freehold and a copyhold atkins  because in the former there must be a tenant of the freehold against who a  prcipe may be bring but copyhold land be not hold of the manor but be parcel  of the manor and the freehold be in the lord therefore no prcipe can be bring  against the tenant of a copyhold but I know of no case where there be a  limitation of a copyhold in the manner it be here that it have be construe to  be good as to the endorsement this be no more than the declaration of the  trust of the profit to William for Thomas and not for payment of debt or any  other purpose I think this rather turn against the plaintiff because it take  it out of the reason of Borastons case for there the testator have make a  computation that the profit will clear his debt by the time his son attain the  age of twentyone and therefore notwithstanding he die before twentyone the  court be of opinion it ought to continue till he may have attain his age of  twentyone but here William Lovel can not be Accountable to any heir of Thomas  Lovel for William by the memorandum be express direct to be Accountable to  Thomas only therefore as this differ from Borastons case and as it be not upon  the construction of a will and as the surrender of copyhold estate be to have  the same construction with feoff at law and other conveyance therefore I must  decree for the defendant the heir at law of William Lovel and dismiss the bill  of the plaintiff who be the brother and heir at law of Thomas but without cost  atkins er p