case John lloyd et ux appellant Cornelius burton et ux respondent that  February Mews dig go a have make a surrender of his copyhold estate leave it  in the hand of the tenant who take it in order to be present a afterward make  his will and thereby devise this estate to his child but the tenant neglect to  present the surrender hold that this surrender ought to be make good and  decree that the estate shall be enjoy accord to the will viner vol p can cite  in win Andrew Burton be seize of a copyhold estate hold of the manor of Oakham  cum Barlethorpe in the county of Rutland and have issue by his first wife  Andrew his old son and the appellant mary and by the respondent Sarah his  second wife the other respondent and Bartin he on the saint of may make a  surrender of all his copyhold message land and tenement with the appurtenance  into the hand of the lord of the say manor by the acceptance of Hugh Ashton  one of the customary tenant thereof to such use as he the say Andrew Burton  shall by his last will in write limit declare and appoint a few day afterward  Burton make his will date the that of may and thereby devise all his freehold  land in Barlethorpe to his say son Andrew and the heir male of his body  remainder to his son Cornelius the respondent and the heir male of his body  remainder to his son Bartin and the heir male of his body with remainder to  his own right heir and then recite that he have make a surrender of all his  copyhold land and tenement in Barlethorpe aforesaid to the use of his will he  declare the use of such surrender to be to the use of his say son Andrew and  the heir male of his body remainder to the use of his say son Cornelius and  the heir male of his body remainder to the use of his say son Bartin and the  heir male of his body with remainder to his own right heir the testator then  give the profit both of the say freehold and copyhold brown premise to the  respondent Sarah his wife towards educate his child until his son Andrew shall  attain his age of twentyone he give to the appellant mary two exchequer  annuity of pound per and each and pound in money in full for her portion to be  say on the day of her marriage provide she marry with the consent and  approbation of John Noell Esq and the respondent Sarah or one of they but if  she marry without such consent and approbation then he give her only the say  two annuity in April the testator die and in may Hugh Ashton who take the  surrender and in who hand the same be leave in order to be present also die  but without have make any such presentment in October Andrew the son die  intestate and unmarried without have ever be admit to this copyhold estate  although the tenant thereof have attorned to he and the surrender not be yet  find the appellant mary claim to be entitle as the sister and heir at law of  Andrew and prevail with the tenant to attorn to her and the other appellant  her husband the surrender be at length find the respondent Cornelius by the  other respondent his mother and next friend in Trinity term exhibit his bill  in the court of chancery against the appellant and their tenant pray that the  want of a surrender to this copyhold estate duly present may be supply in his  favour and that he may hold and enjoy the same accord to the limitation of his  father will hereupon the appellant file their cross bill to be quiet in the  possession of the premise and to discover what provision be make for the  respondent Cornelius by the will of his say father both cause be at issue and  witness examine the same be hear at the roll on the d of July when his honour  be of opinion that the surrender ought to be make good and therefore decree  that the say Cornelius shall hold and enjoy the copyhold premise accord to the  say testator will and that the appellant shall account for the rend and profit  thereof brown er p the appellant think themselves aggrieve by this decree  appeal to the Lord chancellor Harcourt who on hear the cause upon the that of  November not only confirm the decree of the master of the roll but order that  the appellant shall make a surrender of the premise to the use limit by the  testator will but the appellant be still dissatisfy bring the present appeal  and on their behalf it be say b Northey S Cowper to be prove in the cause that  the say surrender be neither execute accord to the custom of the manor or  present at any court hold for the same although several court be hold after  the date of it and at one of which both the testator himself as well as Ashton  the tenant brown who take the surrender be personal present but on the  contrary it be prove that the surrender be recall by the testator from Ashton  and therefore it be insist that the same be void at law which the appellant be  ready to try upon a proper issue be direct for that purpose but that to supply  the surrender or compel the appellant to make a new one be manifest against  the testator intention who can have no reason for recall the surrender he have  make but to prevent its be present at the next court as he know it ought to be  if he have intend it to take effect that the respondent Cornelius be very well  provide for by his father will independent of the estate in question which be  only a remainder can not be consider by the testator as a provision for a  child the equitable reason therefore of supply the surrender cease and the  appellant right which be both a legal and a equitable one ought not to be take  away from they without at least direct a issue to try whether the paper write  purport to be a surrender be duly execute and present and if so whether the  same be not recall on the other side it be say I Jekyll S mead that since the  decree the respondent Cornelius have be admit tenant of this copyhold estate  have pay pound fine for such admittance and as the devise thereof be for the  benefit of a child such devise accord to the rule and practice of court of  equity ought to be support and make good even though no surrender at all have  be make to the use of the will accord after hear counsel on this appeal it be  order and adjudge that the decree therein complain of and the confirmation  thereof shall be affirm and that the appellant shall pay the respondent the  sum of pound for their cost in the house jour vol p