case norris versus Le neve April S c ante Semb a nominal manor will pass under  the general word message land tenement and hereditament the commissioner who  have be appoint to settle the boundary between the party and for separate  freehold and copyhold certify to the chancellor a doubt they have whether a  manor be include under the word land tenement and hereditament in the  conveyance of old Oliver Le neve Lord chancellor there be no question but a  manor may pass by the word hereditament the question then will be whether it  will pass as it be place in these two conveyance in the first deed be these  word also all those message land tenement and hereditament of the say Oliver  Le neve situate lie and be in the town c this be large enough to take in any  of the land in the place before mention now where a man be make a general  settlement of his estate I be of opinion that a nominal manor will pass under  these general word though there be a sort of heraldry in the law in some case  as for instance in the act of parliament relate to the clergy as to comprise  or nient comprise in the law upon this head enjoyment will determine whether  it be comprise or not the commissioner have nothing to do in set out boundary  to consider it as a manor but only to distinguish freehold from copyhold for  manor do not proper consist of meet and bind therefore I will quash the  certificate of the commissioner note his lordship do order that such part of  the say certificate whereby the say commissioner certify their doubt concern  the say manor and court leet be quash the same not be warrant by the  commission as to the question whether the expense of the commission shall fall  upon the plaintiff only atkins there do not seem to have be any default either  in the plaintiff or defendant that these land are mix and confound and  therefore it will be hard to throw the whole upon the plaintiff but then the  difficulty will be whether as the defendant interest be much more  inconsiderable than the pfaintiffs he shall bear the expense equal with the  plaintiff I do not know any instance where the court have take this into their  consideration where the value of the estate belong to both party be  considerable though not equal for it be possible nay even probable that the  confusion may arise from the estate of less value and if I be of opinion that  the estate of lessvalue shall bear the proportion accord to its value I must  direct a account before a master which will be attend with a much great  expense to both side and therefore I have better keep to one uniform method  than lie down a new rule of this kind for it will be mischievous to the party  themselves decree that one moiety of the cost shall be bear by the plaintiff  the other moiety by the defendant Reg lib b fol atkins er p