atkins case Sutton versus stone and other December at the roll before Mr  justice wright a copyhold surrender to the husband for life to the wife for  life remainder to the heir of the body of husband and wife remainder in fee to  the survivor give to the wife who survive a estatetail only after possibility  of issue extinct and the estatetail vest in the heir of the husband and wife a  surrender of a copyhold estate to the husband for life to the wife for life  and to the heir of the body of the husband and wife remainder in fee to the  survivor do not vest a absolute estatetail in the wife who survive but only  give her a estatetail after possibility of issue extinct and the estatetail  vest in the person who be the heir of the body both of husband and wife W  neighbour in surrender the copyhold in question to trustee who be never admit  and to their heir in trust for himself for life remainder to his wife mary and  the heir of her body this settlement be make after marriage W neighbour die  and mary survive these copyhold premise be mortgage to the plaintiff in and  his surrender be renew in and the lord of the manor have refuse to admit the  mortgagee and give he notice of the prior surrender the mortgagee now bring  his bill when it be decree that the settlement be fraudulent against the  plaintiff and that he shall be admit under the say surrender but upon payment  of the mortgagemoney and interest the plaintiff be to reconvey the premise to  stone and his wife who be former the widow of W neighbour Reg lib b fol see Mr  fearne observation on this case essay on count Rem Edward in the case of  surrender of copyhold estate the same construction must take place as in all  other conveyance at law and so hold in idle versus coke holt case p W SC see  fisher v Wigg Cox p W n Rigden v vallier Ves by the whole court that a  limitation of use in a copyhold surrender must be construe by the same rule as  if it be a limitation in any other conveyance at commonlaw and that the intent  of the party be not sufficient as in a will copyhold estate be not within the  statute of use Henry c cro car Ves where there be a clear tenancy in tail  there be no occasion for the remaindermans be a party to a bill of foreclosure  but if there be a express estate for life the remainderman ought to be a party  a mortgagee who be not in possession may bring his bill against a mortgagor  before admittance for a decree of foreclosure and after he have obtain such a  decree may bring his ejectment for the possession of the mortgage premise the  mortgagee here have bring his bill against a mortgagor to compel he as tenant  in tail to make a good title by suffer a recovery in Tourle v rand bro Charles  Rep Lord Thurlow observe that if a tenant in tail mortgage the covenant for  further assurance may be take hold on as a plank see Edward v Applebee in note  ibidem pie v Daubuz bro Charles Rep I do not apprehend say Mr justice wright  that this court will point out what title the mortgagor shall make but will  decree he to make such title to the mortgagee as he be capable of do and  therefore I direct a good title to be make by the defendant to the plaintiff  and the principal interest and cost on the mortgage to be pay in six month or  the defendant to stand absolute foreclose where there be no replication to the  answer a defendant be entitle only to cost accord to the course of the court  but notwithstanding the plaintiff have not in this case reply to the answer of  the lord of the manor yet desire a act to be do atkins er p by the lord  videlicet the admit he to the copyhold estate he must pay this defendant cost  to be tax by a master see Newsham v grey post