burrow earl of bath versus abney spinster Friday that February the executor of  a termor of copyhold land must be admit and pay a fine to the lord a vide vin  Cop W strange pale yellow ten Leon contra discuss Wilson v hoar b and ad refer  to Everingham v Ivatt lr Q b l I Q b a case out of chancery for the opinion of  this court the question be whether a executor of a copyholder for a term of  year be vide ante N B Mr justice Wilmot be not present at a one part of this  motion be engage in the court of chancery as one of the lord commissioner  during the whole of it a chancery will not compel the lord to give his tenant  licence to lease Ch bring custom that on payment of year rend the lord shall  licence to let for year burrow er p oblige to be admit and consequent liable  to pay a fine upon such admittance the manor in which the land lie be Stoke  Newington in Middlesex the defendant mrs Abney be lady of this manor the  premise demise be acre of meadow let at per annum the state of the case be  pretty long and particular but the question be short a videlicet whether a  executor of a tenant for year come into the copyhold as a chattel real under  his testator will be oblige to be admit for the counsel for the plaintiff  acknowledge that the be liable to a fine will consequent follow a necessity of  admittance that be to say they admit that if he be compellable to come in and  be admit he will also be compellable to pay a fine b the full state of the  case be in substance this that Henry guy be seize in fee of sixty acre of  meadow in the manor of Stoke Newington let at per annum the say Henry guy  surrender the same to the use of his will and have so surrender in of proper  manner to the use of his will he die seize in fee have first duly make his  will and thereby devise to John tailor and Arthur lake their executor and  administrator for ninetynine year if three person in his say will name or any  of they shall so long live upon several trust c videlicet first to the use of  the present earl of Bath for life then to his issue male videlicet first and  other son c in strict settlement then in the like manner to the use of the  earl brother general Pulteney then to the late Mr Daniel Pulteney in like  manner then to the use of the earl of bath in fee and after the death of the  say testator the say tailor and lake the trustee claim to be admit accord to  the tenor of the will V post and be thereupon admit accord to the custom of  the say burrow manor do fealty and pay a fine of to the then lord of the manor  on such admittance one of the three life be since dead the other two live and  both of the say two lessee John tailor and Arthur lake be dead but John tailor  survive lake tailor the survive but now decease lessee appoint dr John tailor  and another person his executor and dr tailor be now the survive executor of  John tailor the original and survive colessee a mrs Abney be now lady of the  manor it do not appear to the lord or lady of the manor that the lessee tailor  and lake be dead till when this fact be find by the homage then the executor  of the survivor which be dr John tailor the survive executor of the say John  tailor the original colessee be summon to come inn and if he will not licence  the tenant may let without adjudge a good custom yet the licence seem  unnecessary if there be a refusal since it may be do without it pale yellow  ten to prove a custom to grant lease for year it be not sufficient to prove it  for thirty or forty year but it ought to be from time whereof c cro Elizabeth  pl say vide contra Danv pl in n a there be in fact two question but the second  be a consequence of the first if it be decide for the lady of the manor vide  post b the devise be make by will find on a surrender to the use thereof and  therefore it be the same as if it have be make by surrender as the lady of the  manor or her steward make no objection to a admission for a term of year c the  devise be to the trustee for ninetynine year in trust to pay life annuity and  on several trust not for the benefit of Lord bath and after the determination  of the term then to ford bath for life with remainder over on the testator  death the trustee be admit to the copyhold premise as joint tenant secundum  course will that and pay a fine of which be under two year and one quarter  value of the estate a after the death of tailor the survive trustee mrs Abney  the lady of the manor cause proclamation to be make for somebody to come and  take the estate whereupon the now plaintiff who be the remainderman the  representative of the survive trustee and the two survive annuitant file a  bill and upon allegation that the trustee be admit to and pay a fine for the  whole term and that the representative of the survive trustee have a right to  be admit without fine if any admission be necessary they pray that the lady of  the manor may be restrain from take advantage of the forfeiture and from bring  any ejectment burrow er p and be admit the jury have find that the original  lessee be both dead and proclamation issue c b the proclamation be for the  heir of tailor or other person claim c to come in c it be state that the  general custom of the manor be to grant the copyhold for life or in fee and  that no other instance of a grant for year beside the present instance now  before the court have be know in the say manor of Stoke Newington the case  further state that fine have be usual pay upon admission b and that the usual  rate of such fine have be a year and a half improve rend of the premise to  which the tenant be admit and by the usage of this manor the fine usual take  for two life be as much and half as much as the fine for one life and the e  usual take for three life be as much and half as much as the fine for two life  the two question make upon this case and send to this court for their opinion  upon they be first whether the survive executor of John tailor the survive  trustee of the term for ninetynine year ought to come in to be admit tenant of  the copyhold premise in question dly in case he ought then whether the lady of  the manor will be entitle to any fine upon such admittance this case be twice  speak to in this court first on Tuesday that may by Mr Pratt for the plaintiff  and Mr jewel for the defendant and a second time on Friday that Feb by Mr  Norton for the plaintiff and Mr gold for the defendant burrow and the two  question be reduce into one as be abovementioned it be agree that if the  executor be compellable to be admit he will consequent be liable to a fine it  be argue on the part of the plaintiff the earl of bath that the fine become  due to the lord or lady of the manor upon every change of the estate not upon  the change of the tenant where there be no change of the estate for where  there be several remainder to several person the admission of the first taker  be the admission of every person in remainder   b copyhold case and   a case  the that cro Elizabeth gyppin v Bunney kitchen and here tailor and lake be  admit accord to the tenor of their testator will which must have be to the  whole estate comprise in the will and therefore the fine must have be  proportionable to the value of the whole term of year and it be against  conscience that the executor of the decease lessee shall pay another fine for  the same estate neither be he compellable to come in and be admit afresh it be  the same estate and that no fresh admittance be necessary nor any far fine  Payable appear from the case of dell v Higden in more and the case Tiping v  bunning more in both which case it be hold and resolve that the admittance of  a tenant for life of a copyhold be a admittance of he in remainder and that no  new fine be due from he in remainder and in cro Elizabeth Gippin v Bunney  which be SC with more Popham and Fenner hold accord and that because they have  but one estate in law and they hold that only one fine be due which the first  taker shall pay in lev the case of barn v CorkeTr W m in c b it come direct in  question and Lord coke dictum in Rep a be take into consideration and explain  to be restrain to special custom only but the general principle of law be  settle to be that no fine be due to the lord from the remainderman without a  special custom for it b if there be any exception to the rule that admission  universal give a right to a fine it be in the case of a widow estate or of a  tenant by the curtesy as to which vide pale yellow tenor Edward page N B in a  manor in which the tenant hold estate by copy to they and their heir by the  word Himself et nest for ninetynine year yield a rend and mention that by a  custom the lord upon expiration of every estate ought to renew upon reasonable  fine the lord insist that there be such a custom to renew but the fine be  always such as the plaintiff can agree with he for there be no benefit to the  lord during the ninetynine year but the court declare that the plaintiff on  payment of two year value shall be admit to their estate Morgan v Scudamour Ch  Rep burrow er p and the reason be as Popham say in the case of Gyppn v Bunney  because both have but one estate in law and the lord have already admit to the  whole which reason be quite applicable to the present case burrow if a  copyholder in fee grant his copyhold upon condition and enter for the  condition break there shall be no fresh admittance nor fine because he be in  position quo prius coke complete copyholder so if there be two joint tenant  and one die the survivor needs no admittance nor shall pay a fine ibidem so  the widow of a copyholder for her customary freebench because it be part of  the old estate and be cast upon her and vest by law so it be also in dower and  tenancy by courtesy though there a new tenant intervene Noy Rennington V coal  be full in point also Hutton Jurden v stone S c hob Howard against Bartlet S p  Danv title copyhold letter m pl in point cro James waldoe v Frances Bartlet  Wid SC with hob but not this same point Ro Rep Walter v Bartlet SC it be  consider only as a excrescence out of the original estate by ld Hobart pa and  a executor of a copyholder for year be within the same reason for it be only  the old estate continue but the case of descent may be object for there the  estate be the same only the tenant alter now it may be difficult to enter into  the true reason of this but it man be consider as a change of estate and as a  new grant the lord give a new admittance a new grant but perhaps that case of  descent may be a exception from the general rule there be several case in  point for the plaintiff and no authority against he except Weston opinion in  Dedicotts case Dedicotts case itself in Leon be most express in point and dyer  be S but dyer do not mention this point at all a the wife interest be there a  chattelinterest and she be to have it for burrow er p sixteen year and her  second husband who survive her have it as her assignee without pay any fine or  be admit and in Leon brown and dyer put the very present case in term of a  executor of a copyholder for year and agree that his all have the term without  admittance and the case of Otlery monastery in Leon and Leon S c twice print  verbatim alike almost mention a determination of the present question in point  agreeable to which be another report of it call Heydons case in more SC  Egerton in his argument of that case of Otlery vouch a case as determine  burrow in Elizabeth n c b which case be express in point with we but the case  itself of Elizabeth n c b which he so cite be not to be find Danv letter you  mention SC shepherd CourtKeepers Guide that edit pa and calthrops read on  copyhold d edit pa be express in point and so again in pa tenant in dower and  freebench tenor S p accord the book of tenor that have no name to it and  Comberbach express that the executor of a termor for year of a copyhold shall  pay no fine for admittance they say that the case of dell v Higden in more be  but a lose note in the index title copyhold the case be put right for it be  there put of a grant of a copyhold which mean a grant by the lord therefore as  there put the case be right and queen if in licence to lease there be not  frequent special reservation soas to prevent any prejudice to the lord for  there be in all or most I have see burrow er p and cro Elizabeth which be a  report of the very same case do not mention any such question in it and as to  what be cite out of the case of Gippin v Bunney cro Elizabeth and more they  say it be no more than a dictum of popham then if the executor be not oblige  to be admit no fine be due for no fine be due but upon admittance but the  inconvenience may be object that a lord may be strip of his inheritance by  copyholder surrender for long term as even for a term of year and so the lord  may lose his fine but first this inconvenience do not real exist at present  and dly the lord may in such case refuse to admit and can not be force to it  either in law or equity Bulst ford v Hoskins prove that the copyholder can  bring a action at law it be a most express determination in point and in  equity they will not assist the copyholder in such a attempt Comberb the  present case be a lease to two person for year determinable upon three life in  which the fine may easy in fact be settle by a proportional computation if it  can be do by law the copyholder derive his estate not from the lord but from  the custom of the manor for a lord who be only tenant for life may admit in  fee and that the lord will not be bind either in law or equity to admit upon a  surrender by a copyholder in burrow fee for year Comberb express prove and  also prove that in such a case a executor shall pay no fine for admittance  which it must be suppose be take down by the reporter as Lord holt opinion  this be no part of the case of Sandwell v Sandwell but manifest a quite  distinct case probable at nisi prius the lord interest in his fine be sacred a  Act of parliament shall not be construe so as to deprive he of it V Manwoods  diversity in more it will be very hard on our side if a year and a half rack  rend be to be pay upon every charge of a executor therefore they pray a  certificate in the plaintiff favour on the part of mrs Abney lady of the manor  it be agree that in this particular ease the fine and the admittance must  depend on each other I e that either both may be require or neither can but it  be say that the reason of admittance in general depend upon the relation that  subsist between lord and tenant and that the admission of the tenant in these  case be personal to the tenant himself only and the estate depend upon the  will and pleasure of the lord he may original admit who he please on the  decease of a tenant indeed at length a sort of claim in the heir at law to  succeed to his ancestor become establish by custom however a great deal still  remain in the lord power and discretion and the tenure be still strict at the  lord will it be always necessary that the new tenant shall personal appear and  it so remain still to this day he must pay his fine and do fealty in person    copyholder and Rep b c to the like effect and they forfeit if they grant lease  without licence   copyhold case Rep a comb case and they must be person  capable of be admit for it be impossible to admit one who be incapable of  admission now no man be heir or executor to the tenant during the tenant life  therefore the thing itself be impossible that the admission of the first  tenant shall be a admission of they also as heir or executor to such first  tenant burrow the change of estate and not of tenant can be the true ground of  the fine to the lord for that notion will let in many inconvenience and it  will be most unreasonable that one single fine to the lord shall answer to all  change of the tenant the remainderman may be tenant for one purpose not for  another   Rep a b admittance precede the fine and be the cause of it it  isnecessary in order to entitle the lord to a fine and this appear to be the  sense of the legislature by burrow er p g c a Act to enable lord of manor more  easy to recover their fine e and upon admittance a fine be due and Mod  Backburn v grave prove that the lord shall still have his fine although the  admission of the particular tenant be the admission of the remainderman it do  not follow that because the estate be vest therefore there shall be no  admittance or fine for upon descent where there be no doubt but that a fine be  Payable yet the estate be undoubted vest in the heir and coke complete  copyholder page be express in point that he in remainder shall be admit and  pay a fine although his estate be vest by the admittance of the tenant for  life in the case of barn v cork lev the principal question they say be upon  the forfeiture and that the other point be only incidental but the first point  be in term whether a fine be due in the case just now mention style Batmore ux  v grave in Ventr or rather Blackburn v grave as it be call in Mod pound SC it  be determine that the admission of tenant for year be a admittance of he in  remainder and occasion a possession brother and it be there resolve that the  admission of the tenant for year though it be a admittance of he in the  remainder yet shall not prejudice the lord as to the fine from the remainder  man and Ventr be express and plain that the remainderman must pay a fine when  his estate come in be indeed where the whole fine have be already pay to the  lord upon the first admission there be no reason why it shall be pay over  again and the remainderman be in fact admit in such case but where the fine be  not pay for the whole upon the original admission there the remainderman must  pay a fine and must be burrow admit V vent and Mod where this matter seem to  be put upon a right and reasonable foot if the remainderman die during the  life of the tenant for life his heir shall be admit and must pay a fine  therefore the payment be for life in be and the fine be Payable upon the  change of the tenant and the admittance do not extend beyond the person of the  tenant admit they be still only tenant at will   copyholder express Rep b S p  in point accord and the estate be only vest in the tenant personal in the  present case the person original admit pray to be admit accord to the tenor of  the testator will and it be grant to they accord to the custom of the manor  there be nothing say of their executor and they be admit as trustee and not  for their own benefit and their admission be only personal the admittance of a  heir be very different complete copyholder Rep b the heir have very  considerable interest before admission yet he must be admit as to tenant pour  autre vie they shall be admit and pay fine   copyholder all who allow of a  general occupant say he must be admit and there be no doubt but that a special  occupant must be admit and pay a fine wherever a right be transfer upon death  there must be a admittance a termor may die intestate and have no  administrator or may make a will and the executor renounce and shall the lord  have no tenant sure in these case the lord shall not be without a tenant at  all a assignee of a term shall pay a fine so a devisee of a term indeed every  new tenant shall pay a mortgagee a assignee of a bankrupt the heir of the  assignee in short wherever there be a change of tenant if it depend upon the  change of estate only a estate in fee will never pay burrow Dedicotts case be  strong for the defendant dyer explain Leon the husband it appear by dyer be  not the personal representative of his wife for she have a administrator  appoint by the ordinary in Leon there be as he report it a obiter dictum of  two judge indeed but contradict by another in dyer it appear that the husband  hold in right of his wife and the dispute be between the wife administrator  and the vide Keble S c burrow er p husband the husband be possess joint with  the wife on his marriage and he only continue in possession executor may be  consider as assignee the rather as copyhold estate be not asset but the  husband can not in this case of Dedicott be consider as assignee in Rep a Lord  coke cite e and e Simpkin simeon case by which it appear that the baron be not  assignee to his wife in Dedicotts case there be no transmission of estate it  be like the case of jointtenants where the survivor shall not pay   copyholder  calthrops read be plain the same case with Leon and dyer Hauchet v rise as  appear by the margin of dyer and by the end of the case itself too it be only  a scrap out of Leonard as to the case of Otlery monastery report in more and  in Leon and Leon SC in term and the case of Elizabeth there cite by Mr  solicitor general Egerton there be no question between tenant and lord and  Egerton plain mean Dedicotts case and the dictum there mention for Dedicotts  case be in c b and be in Elizabeth accord to Leon and h Elizabeth accord to  dyer as to Noy Reninington against Colethe custom of the manor be for the wife  to hold durante widowhood and the wife estate durante widowhood be but a  branch of the husband estate as be right there say Hobart as to hob the case  of Howard v Bartlet the same custom be state and the husband estate be hold  not to be merge and the lastmentioned case of Rennington v coal be there take  notice of and cite by Lord Hobart as to Comberb it be a mere short lose  nisiprius note neither the book itself nor this note in it be of any authority  and non constat who opinion it be that the note mention if it be good law it  will render burrow all familysettlements ineffectual for he assert that the  surrender may be for a thousand year and that the executor shall pay no fine  at this rate the grant copyhold for term of year will be in effect  enfranchising they we be not now upon any special custom of a manor but upon  the general custom of manor therefore the case upon particular custom be not  applicable to the present the collateral quality of dower freebank c be not  incident to copyhold but depend upon special custom in this manor the fine be  uncertain but one year and a half value of the net year rend have be general  take for one life two year and a quarter for two life and for three life half  as much more and regard ought to he have to the fine pay on the last  admittance this estate be of the value of per and when the two tenant tailor  and lake the first life be admit and the fine pay videlicet answer to the two  life admit accord to the abovementioned rule and the length of the term be of  no consequence these two person therefore be the tenant after their death the  lord have no tenant it make no difference whether the admittance be for life  or for a term of year determinable on life upon the usage state on this case a  proportionable sum be to be pay for a fine accord to the number of life and  this be a just rule and the best rule and it be better tokeep to this rule  than to form a new rule upon a suit in equity to compel the lord to admit the  point turn mere and entire upon the change of tenant if it be other wise lord  of manor nay even jointure lady of manor may make voluntary grant and encumber  their posterity ad it pleases the lady of this manor be lessee under a  prebendary and consequent such lessee though she be only so for one year may  admit for year without any fresh fine upon their principle and so defraud the  original owner of the manor in fee it will take it out of the restrain statute  of queen Elizabeth the first admission be in videlicet the admission of the  two life who be admit accord to the tenor of the testator will pound S year a  year year pound of a year year pound burrow er p burrow reply on the part of  the plaintiff the dispute between we be upon what principle fine be due to the  lord they say on the change of tenant we say on the change of estate only they  argue the admittance to be personal and urge it from the do fealty at the time  of admission we agree this be so original but we say the admittance be not  always personal now the case of dower and of tenant by courtesy prove this for  neither of these tenant appear personal or do fealty aid the case of barn  against cork in lev alone prove the same thing and ld coke in his copyholder  agree that the heir will not need to be admit if it be not on account of the  lord fine and all the remainderman be admit under the original admittance till  a descent but we agree that whenever a descent happen the lord shall have a  fine the gradual diminution of fine on admit for several life seem to show  that only one fine be due and that that fine be Payable on the first admission  the case of a occupant pour autre vie be a new estate for the old estate be go  though the grantor be estopped to take against his own grant which extend  beyond the life of the grantee himself as to the assignee of a term he can  only come in by surrender and admittance which be a new estate and he can have  nothing till admittance so in case of a mortgage the mortgagee come in under a  surrender which make a new estate so in case of a assignee of a bankrupt and  the Act of parliament of king James require the assignee come in thus it take  express care of the lord interest V Elizabeth c I c I c and also   copyholder  pa at the very bottom the case of a devisee be likewise undoubted a new estate  burrow and in case of the executor renounce or of no administration be take  out still the lord will not lose his fine ail in case of a woman free bench  there be a change of tenant so in a tenant by curtesys case as to the case in  dyer the husband be a new tenant it be true but the estate be the same just so  here in the case of a executor the estate remain the same probable the case  mention by Mr calthrop be the same case with that in dyer but still Mr  calthrops opinion stand uncontradicted and it be confirm by Lord Ch I holt  dictum and by the tenor and by Danvers V ante as to the quantum of the  finethey say the original fine be take only as a equivalent for two life and  that therefore another ought now to be pay as a equivalent for a three but the  fine usual take in this manor where a three life be add to two former one be  only the fine upon two life and half as much more whereas they now demand a  whole fine and they may just as well demand it if only a few year of the term  remain unexpired as to the inconvenience the lord can be compel to admit  either by law or in equity without the tenant pay a reasonable fine to the  lord and a temporary lord can never infranchise the tenant estate by  collusion  for that will be a void grant and will be consider as a voluntary  admission which will not prejudice the capital lord a the lord may set a fine  for the particular estate and another for the remainder dub vent but there  ought to be a special custom otherwise a fine be not due for a remainder per  two judge lev per ib cro Elizabeth and if another fine be set for a remainder  it be only half kit b and it need not be pay till the remainder come into  possession per wile vent if a copyhold be grant to a for year who die during  the term the executor shall be admit and pay a find per Weston Leon Com dig  N B the fine for two life be the one and a half times of that take for one and  the fine for three be one and a half times of that take for two by the usage  of this manor vide ante burrow er p this be owe to the modern fashion of  introduce long term unknown to our ancestor and to our old law which none but  the parliament can change perhaps it will be no bad policy if all copyhold be  enfranchise however though a lord may grant a copyhold for a term of year yet  he be not compellable to do so it be voluntary the lord be not oblige to admit  for term of year a burrow here the that be admit accord to the tenor of the  will for so they pray it and their prayer be grant V ante the law be clear  that no admission of the remainderman be necessary and there be no  inconvenience attend such a determination but what the lord himself may  obviate the court take time to advice and after advice to certify and about a  fortnight after the end of this term they give their certificate which be here  subjoin N B what be say by hale and wile in Mod and Ventr seem to be the  justice of the case the opinion of the court of king bench on the case state  upon the follow question videlicet saint whether the survive executor of John  tailor the survive trustee of the term of ninetynine year ought to come in to  be admit tenant of the copyhold premise in question d in case he ought whether  the lady of the manor will be entitle to any fine upon such admittance have  hear counsel on both side and consider of this case we be of opinion that this  survive executor of John tailor the survive trustee of the term of ninetynine  year ought to come in to be admit tenant of the copyhold premise in question  and that the lady of the manor will be entitle to a fine upon such admittance  Mansfield m foster that February t denison I e WILMOT a this case be very  clear report in dyer and be a very strong authority against the plaintiff for  the opinion of the whole court there be accord to that report that the entry  of the administrator of the wife to who also the lord have grant the land  during the nonage of the son that be during the term be unlawful but the  interest which be in the wife be a term the which by the death of the feme  vest in the husband by the law and custom of the realm if there be not some  private custom of the manor to the contrary now it be well know that the wife  term in freehold land will vest in the husband by survivorship if he outlive  the wife in his own right and that he have no occasion to take out  administration if the term be in his possession but if not he must then take  out administration to entitle himself to it the same as to other choose in  action   light b b a this therefore show that the court consider the term as a  interest at commonlaw and this be the point adjudge the other point there  mention which be the same as the point in the principal case there be probable  not take notice of because as appear in Leon there be a difference in opinion  about it and it be not direct the point in judgement though there be a strong  analogy between the two point because the husband be a new tenant and hold to  be entitle by the commonlaw and if the commonlaw give it to he without  admission though he be a new tenant on the general principle that a term for  year belong to the wife will vest in the husband by survivorship there seem no  reason why since the commonlaw will in other case vest the term in the  executor of the termor they shall be oblige to be admit any more than the  husband for it be not like the case of jointtenant for the reason why a  jointtenant shall not be admit be because he be before admit general all the  jointtenants be express admit but if not the administration of one be the  administration of all   Cop S but that reason do not apply to the case of a  feme who have a term f or year in a copyhold and afterward take husband and  die which be the case in dyer and therefore there be no similitude in this  respect between the case in dyer and the case of jointtenants but the case of  the husband survive and hold during the term without any admission be more  like the case of executor because neither the husband nor the executor claim  by custom but by commonlaw and as the one be not subject to a admission and  fine though he be never admit there be no reason why the other shall be  subject thereto and Gilbert in his treatise of tenor Edward page Edward page  cite the above case in Leon and dyer and after take notice that one judge  differ from the other two give his opinion in favour of the right of the  executor to have the term without any new admittance for he observe that  opinion seem reasonable for they continue the possession of the testator and  have it only to his use before this determination all the authority or at  least the great weight of they be in favour of the executor and the principle  on which other case have be determine be also in favour of the executor for it  be hold uniform if the lord bath a particular estate in the manor if his  estate determine before the expiration of the term of year for which the lease  be make and the licence granted by he that the lease will be determine Brownl  and the reason be that such a lord can discharge the lord interest any further  than his own interest in the manor extend pale yellow ten it be also hold that  if the lord seize in fee give licence to lease and the copyholder lease accord  to the licence his lessee may assign or make a underlease without any new  licence pale yellow ten though the reference there be not to the point but the  samepoints be mention as of course though without any state of the case or any  notice take by who in Mod and this reason be give videlicet because the lord  interest be bind for ninetynine year N B if tenant in fee of a copyhold  surrender to one for year it seem that he shall hold of the lord but if the  lease be make by indenture there it seem he hold of his lessor pale yellow ten  edit note also that the lease for year be in this case of the earl of bath v  Abney create by devise pursuant to a surrender to the use of the will and in  all such case the estate passes by the surrender and the will be only  declaratory of the use therefore this case be to be consider in the same light  as if the term have be create by surrender and consequent the termors be  tenant to the lord and therefore on the death of the survivor a fine will be  due from his executor who will also be tenant to the lady of the manor and  wherever there be a admission there be general a fine due but if the lease  have be create by deed and by licence then the termors will not have be tenant  to the lady of the manor pale yellow where sup therefore burrow ought in this  report to have state how the term be create and the judgement in this case  ought to have be find upon the above distinction but as it be not but be give  general as law with respect to all term for year in copyhold the judgement as  it appear on this report and as it seem to have be give by the court be not  law because it be give as law with respect to lease whether make by deed by  the copyholder with licence or by grant by the lord whereas in fact it be law  only in the last of those two case