coke a margaret Podger case pasch James which begin mich James rot the lord of  a manor in which certain land be demise and demisable by copy of court roll  for one two or three life and in which manor there be a custom that the person  first name in such copy shall take only for his life and the second name after  the death of the first name for his life and so the three after the death of  the second grant the say land to p and e m his daughter for their life c p  enter the lord of the manor bargain and sell the say land to p and his heir  afterward the lord levy a fine with proclamation to p and his heir p die and  the land descend to m p his son and heir who levy a fine to the use of himself  and his wife and to the use of the heir of m pm p die his wife survive and  seize of the say land for her life b who marry e after the fine levy with  proclamation and after her attain the age of twentyone year enter more than  ten year have pass since the death of p and more than five year since the  marriage the entry be adjudge lawful and resolve land hold by copy c be within  the word and intent of the h No fine nor warranty shall bar any estate in  possession reversion or remainder which be not divest and put to a right the  bargain and sale by the lord by deed indent and enrol do not divest the estate  of they in remainder after the bargain and sale e can not enter for her estate  be to commence in possession by the custom after the death of p note the  difference between a lease for year and a lease for life and also between a  grant by copy c for life or in fee by custom c and a lease for life by the  commonlaw if a copyholder for life commit a forfeiture the lord and not the  remainder man shall enter SC Brownl Brownl in replevin between Ralph Bicknel  plaintiff and John Tucker defendant the plaintiff declare of take his cattle  videlicet sheep at Curririval in the county of coke report b er p Somerset in  a place call Hillfield close c the defendant make conusance as bailiff to  Margaret Podger because the place where c be the freehold of the say Margaret  Podger for damagefeasant c in bar of which avowry the plaintiff say that  before the say Margaret have any thing in the place where c one Thomas wise  esquire be seize of the manor of Hampenbridge in the county aforesaid whereof  the place where c be parcel and that the place where be demise and demiseable  by copy of courtroll c for one two or three life and that within the say manor  there be c a custom quod that well that who well queen primus well prima  nominate foret in tali copy shall have the land and tenement to he only for  his life and he who be second name shall have it only for his life post death  of he who be first tenant and so of the three after the death of the second  and that the say Thomas wise lord of the say manor at a court hold October  year Elizabeth grant the place where c to John Podger and Elizabeth and mary  his daughter for their life c by which John enter c and die after who death  Elizabeth enter and marry the say Ralph coke b Bicknel the plaintiff by which  he enter and put in his cattle c and aver the life of Elizabeth the avowant  reply and confess that the say Thomas be seize of the manor and that within  the say manor there be such custom as the plaintiff in bar of the avowry have  allege and confess also the grant make to John Podger Elizabeth and mary prout  c but further say that the say I Podger be so seize of the place where c the  say Thomas wise lord of the say manor year Elizabeth by deed and enrol in the  chancery accord to the statute for S d bargain and sell to the say John Podger  the place where c to have and to hold to he and his heir by force of which and  of the statute of transferring of use into possession the say John Podger be  seize of the place where c in fee and the say John be so seize the say Thomas  wise mensae Michael year Elizabeth levy a fine come Ceo c of the place where c  to the say John Podger and his heir with proclamation accord to the statute of  a h and afterward year Elizabeth John Podger die seize after who death it  descend to Marmaduke Podger his son and heir who thereof year James levy a  fine to Collins and Northover and to the heir of Collins which be to the use  of the say Marmaduke and Margaret his wife and to the heir of the say  Marmaduke but this fine be not plead to be with proclamation and afterward  June year James the say Marmaduke die and Margaret survive he and be thereof  seize for the term of her life and afterward the plaintiff enter into the  tenement and put in his cattle c and that year and more after the death of the  say John Podger be pass and that the say Elizabeth I November year Elizabeth  accomplish her age of year and that she be not covert baron nor non compos  chin nor out of the realm nor in prison and that the say Elizabeth after the  death of John Podger and after her full age nor the say Ralph and Elizabeth  after their marriage within five year do not make any entry or claim c by  which she be bar of all right and claim of and in the place where c by force  of the say statute and aver the life of the say Margaret upon which the  plaintiff demurrer in law and in this case three question be move if customary  estate grant by copy at the will of the lord accord to the custom of the manor  c be within the statute of b h c of fine to be bar by fine with proclamation  and nonclaim by five year admit that such estate be within the say statute if  by the acceptance of the say bargain and sale they in the remainder of the  copyhold estate be put out of possession of their remainder or if their  remainder continue in they if after the say bargain and sale to John Podger  Elizabeth in the remainder may enter coke a as to the first it be a h c b   a    light a a a b Leon Leon Leon Inst Anders Cr Elizabeth Poph say palmer gold  Plowd b b   b   b b a b a b a b a a   b Bulst Inst die pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl  Anders   coke report b er p object that such customary estate be not within  the say Act for diverse reason in respect of the baseness of the estate for in  the judgement of the law they have but a tenancy at will which be so weak that  the maker of the Act of h never intend to include they within the general word  of the Act no more than the statute of W a de gift conditional extend to such  hase estate grant by copy at will c as it be resolve per totan curian in the  last term upon evidence to a jury in trespass between b Thornton and Lucas for  land in Lambeth in the county of Surre which begin James Reg rot vide Heydons  case in the three part of my report f dly it will be very prejudicial to lord  of manor for if a seize of land hold by copy levy a fine with proclamation it  will be dangerous to lord that they may lose not only their fine upon  alienation or descent and the benefit of forfeiture but also may be in danger  of be bar of their freehold and inheritance of the land hold by copy without  any fault in they but it be resolve per totan curian that land hold c by copy  c be within the word and intent of the say Act of h for the word of the  purview be general and the say proclamation so have and make the fine to be a  final end and conclude as well privy as stranger to the same and if no  exception have be in the statute by the word aforesaid all person general will  be conclude as it be hold in d h b and a then let we see what thing be save by  the same Act the word of the save be and save to every person c such right  claim and interest c so that they pursue their title claim or interest within  five year after the proclamation within which word and principal this word  interest e a lease for f year be include so that if he make not entry or claim  within five year he shall be bar as it be resolve in Saffins case in the five  part of my report f and there the word of the preamble of the say Act be well  observe that fine ought to be of great strength to avoid strife and debate and  to the final end and conclusion and there it be infer that great mischief  vexation and trouble will ensue if lease for year which now many time be make  for a great number of year c shall not be within the Act but great mischief  vexation and trouble will ensue if the say Act shall not extend to customary  land hold by copy for a great part of they be grant in feesimple so that it  will be more mischievous and great cause of contention than the say case of  the estate for year and as to the say objection they be answer by the say  resolution of the case of the estate for year for such prejudice may be coke b  object in such case to the lessor as well for his benefit of forfeiture c as  for the hazard of his inheritance as in this case of copyhold to the lord but  if lessee for year or copyholder by assent and covin to bar the lessor or lord  of his inheritance make a feoff and levy a fine with proclamation in the same  manner as appear in Fermors case in the three part of my report f such a fine  shall not a bar the lessor or the lord for the reason there give at large and  the estate of a copyholder be not a mere estate at b will but sencundam  experience manor which custom have fix and strengthen his estate a Cr car godb  roll Rep Benl roll Rep   a a say more Cr Elizabeth Leon Poph sand hard roll  light sect   light a b   a b roll c h c Inst winch Brownl Bulst Benl Cr car d  Br fine Br tail Plowd e   b f Inst Cr car Cr James Plowd a vent hard carter a  and jenk cent Jon winch   a b Carys Rep raym Bulstr Carth b   a   a b   a  light sect   light b   a   b Cr car hetl more coke report a er p notam reader  a difference between a lease for year and a lease for c life and also betwixt  a grant by copy c for life or in fee by custom c and a lease for life by the  commonlaw for if lessee for year be oust and he in reversion seize and the  seize levy a fine with proclamation and five year pass as well the lessor as  the lessee be bar by their nonclaim and the lessor shall not have five year  after the year expire so if copyholder for life or in fee be oust and the lord  seize and the seize levy a fine with proclamation and five year pass as well  the lord as the copyholder be bar and the lord in such case shall not have  five year after the death of the copyholder for life a and the reason of these  difference arise upon the word of the two save in the say Act of h the first  save be save to every person c such right claim and interest c so that they  pursue their title claim or interest by way of action or lawful entry within  five year c the second save be and save to all other person such action right  title c as first shall grow remain or descend or come to they after the first  fine c by force of any gift c or by any other cause or matter have or make  before the say fine the first save extend to those who have present right and  may immediate enter or have their action to recover the land and therefore  they be confine to five year after the fine levy and the second save extend to  those who at the time of the fine levy can immediate have a action nor make a  entry but in going to be and therefore they shall have five year after that  their action c first accrue then when d lessee for year or tenant by copy c  for life or in fee be oust and the lessor or lord seize the lessor or the lord  may immediate have assize or other real action and recover the land and  therefore they be within the first save and by consequence if they do not  pursue their action within the five year after the fine levy they be bar for  ever and they be not within the second save because the lessor or lord have a  present action and remedy and therefore he be out of the say second branch for  the action c do not accrue first to he after the fine coke a and although a a  stranger can of his own head enter in the name of he who have a right to avoid  the fine without command precedent or assent subsequent within the five year  as it be resolve in the l audley case m and Elizabeth in the king bench where  the case be that the l Audley b be seize of certain land year Elizabeth levy a  fine with proclamation and within the year a mere stranger who have not any  right or interest in the land comprise within the fine make a entry in the  name of he who have right within the five year without any request c Cr  Elizabeth Jones more Leon Cr car Plowd b a raym   b a in Walwyn v bishop of  bath will the court lie down the law precise as in the text above sergeant  hill query the position and refer to I p wms ms carter v Barnardiston where it  be say that he in remainder or reversion may enter after the death of tenant  for life notwithstanding the five year be expire because he be not oblige to  watch for a forfeiture and there be still less reason for oblige he to watch  for a forfeiture commit by alienee of tenant for life as alienation may be  make secret in Whaley v tankard lev SC vent t raym it be hold that where  tenant for year if he live so long make a feoff and levy a fine and die he in  reversion shall have five year after his death to avoid the fine and with Acc  Brandlyn v Ord I atk so also where a fine be levy by tenant for life the  remainderman may enter for the forfeiture or within five year after the  natural determination of the precede estate Goodright v forester east and Vid  do v hellier TR sergeant williams note clerk v Pywell sand b   Cop there be a  manifest distinction between these case and the case put by coke for in the  latter the tenant be suppose to be oust and the lord seize and the fine levy  by the seize whereas in the former the fine be levy by the tenant himself or  by his procurement Vid sander on use press on cony do v line barn Cress SC dow  Ryl d Jon a Cr Elizabeth Leon Owen more   light b a b Cr Elizabeth more Poph    light a a coke report b er p or command precedent or assent subsequent within  the five year that this entry shall not avoid the fine for the save in the say  Act have appropriate the pursuit by way of action or lawful entry to he who  have right either by command precedent or assent subsequent within the five  year c all men for approval retrotrahitur et order quiparatur and of such  opinion be all the justice of the sergeant inn in fleet street as Popham chief  justice open report in court against the opinion in h entry CODgeable Br fide  e release d guardian by nurture or in socage may enter in the name of the  infant who have right of entry and that shall vest the estate in the infant  without any command or assent for there be privity betwixt they vide e to h a  f ass p and e b by Thorpe yet g be in the reversion expectant upon a estate  for life or year or the lord of a tenant by copy c may well within the say Act  enter in the name of the tenant for life lessee for year or tenant by copy and  in his own right to save as well their own freehold and inheritance as the say  particular interest for the lessor and the lord be not stranger for they be  privy in estate and as the entry of those particular tenant shall avail the  lessor and the lord be in such case for the privity of their estate so the  entry of the h lessor or the lord in such case in the name of the particular  tenant shall avail they for the privity of their estate and for the salvation  of their several right without any request precedent or assent subsequent for  in such case the lessor or lord pursue their title and claim which they have  to the inheritance by lawful entry within the five year but so do not he who  be a mere stranger who have not any right because the save annex the entry to  he who have right c as be aforesaid b c   light b a d Cr Elizabeth more Wilson    light b Leon e Br seize f Br entry congeable Br seize g carter h carter b  that the entry of a mere stranger will not avoid a fine unless he who have the  right assent to it within the five year Vid Lord Audley v pollard cro  Elizabeth SC more Luttrells case more the entry must be into the land comprise  in the fine a entry into other land claim that which be comprise in the fine  be not sufficient ford v Lord grey Mod c focus v Salisbury it may be observe  that in focus v Salisbury the land be claim in another county than that  comprise in the fine the person make entry must declare at the time of entry  quo mind he enter ford v Lord grey Mod and the entry must be a actual entry  and make before ejectment bring and the day of the demise in the ejectment  must be lie after the day of the entry clerk v rowel Mod do v Hicks TR oat v  brydon burr Berrington v Parkhurst strange SC more full report east and the  party recover will be entitle to mesne profit only from the time of the actual  entry compear v Hicks TR Hugh v Thomas east if the party have any remedy for  prior mesne profit it must be in equity Vid dorm v Forlesque atk where a  infant make a actual entry the fine be avoid for ever and although after be  attain his full age he permit the conusee to be five year in possession  without make any fresh entry he be not bar stowel v zouch Plowd a but now by  stat Ann c no claim or entry to be make upon any land c shall be of any force  to avoid any fine levy with proclamation accord to the statute or shall be a  sufficient entry or claim within the statute unless upon such entry or claim a  action shall be commence within one year after the make of such entry or claim  and prosecute with effect with respect to a infant it seem to be doubt in the  touchstone whether a entry by a stranger will not be sufficient to bar a claim  without a agreement prior or subsequent in Watkins v Ashwell more a tender of  money be make by the mother of a infant to save the forfeiture of a estate and  the mother be not coke report b er p as to the d point it be resolve per totan  curian that no fine nor a warranty shall bar any estate in possession  reversion or remainder which be not divest and put to a right c for he who  have the estate or interest in he can be put to his action entry or claim for  he have that which the action entry or claim will vest in or give he when the  lord make the bargain and sale by deed indent and enrol coke b to I Podger  that do not divest the estate of they in remainder f bring diverse reason  because the lord do that which he may do by law and the copyholder accept that  which he well may the copyholder be in lawful possession and be only passive  in this case and not active and by acceptance he who be in lawful possession  by force of a particular estate can divest the estate of he who have the  freehold or inheritance and therefore if tenant for life a accept a fine of a  stranger come Ceo c it be a forfeiture h but it do not guardian in socage  neither be there any privity or consent of the infant and for these reason the  tender be hold insufficient Vid   Litt b a feme covert may enter at any time  within five year after the determination of her coverture to avoid a fine with  proclamation accord to stat h but the husband will be bar by a fine levy of  his wife land unless be make his entry or claim within the five year hulm v  heelock cro car do v Plumtree barn Ald a actual entry be not necessary to  avoid a fine at commonlaw Vid note c case of fine   b a   b a   light b b and  lev c where a fine be either levy by a person who have no estate of freehold  either by right or wrong or where it be levy without proclamation inasmuch as  no estate be either discontinue or divest by the operation of the fine neither  a action nor a entrvis necessary to avoid it Jenkins v Pritchard will  Berrington v Parkhurst strange S C 13East 489 innotis Clerke v Pywell lSaund  do v Harris m S where tenant for life lease for his own life and die and the  lessee continue in possession without pay rend and die and then the son of the  lessee take possession and pay no rend and afterward levy a fine with  proclamation the court hold that a entry be not necessary to avoid the fine do  v Perkins m S Vid the remark on this case in watkin conveyance by Morley and  coote p a fine by a mortgagor in possession can operate to displace or divest  the right of the mortgagee and do not therefore require a entry to avoid it  hale v do barn Ald SC Dowl Ry by the fine of a tenant in tail in remainder  nothing be divest or put to a right and therefore a actual entry be not  necessary row v power n r do v Harris m S nor for the same reason be a actual  entry necessary where a fine be levy by a tenant in tail in reversion roe v  Elliott barn Ald as a acceptance of a fine come Ceo c by tenant for life from  a stranger do not displace or divest the remainder it will not destroy  contingent remainder dependent upon the estate for life Lloyd v brook vent and  Vid Penrhey v Hurrell Freem it be observe by Mr cruise dig fine Ch there be a  considerable inaccuracy in this second resolution in Podger case if the word I  divest and put to a right be understand conjunctive and in that strict  technical sense which the law annex to they the word I divest signify nothing  more than a mere deprivation of the possession but the word I put to a right  have a much more extensive signification as they mean a deprivation not only  of the possession but also of the right of possession for where a estate be  turn to a right the owner have only the law quality or mere right of property  if therefore the above passage be strict take it will appear to be unsupported  by any authority for though it may be necessary that a estate be divest before  it can be bar by a fine yet it be by no mean necessary that it shall be put to  a right if the passage be read disjunctively videlicet divest or turn to a  right it be unexceptionable a   a   light die pl Mod Rep Kel h a b roll   b  coke report a er p divest the estate of he in reversion or remainder d I  Podger the bargainee be in by force of a bargain and sale by deed indent and  enrol by force of the statute of h of enrolments and a Act of parliament never  do a wrong and thereupon the chief justice put a case which be adjudge Trin  Elizabeth in the exchequer between the queen and the lady b Gresham late the  wife of sir Thomas Gresham knight which be such sir Thomas Gresham be seize  and the manor of Mileham castleacre c in the county of Norfolk levy a fine  thereof to a stringer and Phil Cely year Elizabeth to use declare by certain  indenture so to the use of himself and the lady whether his wife and their  heir for so it be in effect for there be diverse particular mean estate limit  but they be all either determine or never come in be with power of revocation  contain in the say indenture limit that if sir t Gresham shall pay S to  stringer and Cely or to the heir of stringer that then the fine shall be to  the use of sir Thomas and his heir and afterward the say sir Thomas levy a  fine year Elizabeth to the same conusees of the manor of n f c in the county  of York Derby c to the same use declare in another pair of indenture with the  like power of revocation upon payment of S as be contain in the other  indenture different to move and afterward the say a stringer die and afterward  the say sir Thomas pay one sum of S to Cely and to the heir of a stringer for  revocation of the use raise upon both the fine and this payment be testify by  a instrument in write under the seal of the party by good advice as sir Thomas  be persuade and afterward be raise diverse use and estate of diverse manor  hold in capite and afterward sir Thomas die after who death videlicet hill  Elizabeth by the opinion of the justice it be resolve that the use be not  revoke but that the revocation be utter void because two several sum of S  ought to have be render and not one sum of S for they be several indenture and  several manor c and can not be satisfy with one sum wherefore all the say  manor accrue to the lady coke a Gresham by survivor e and afterward the say  revocation be enact and adjudge to be good and sufficient in law by a private  Act of parliament make year Elizabeth and because the say sir Thomas have by  indenture of covenant raise new use after the say suppose revocation of  diverse of the say land hold in capite the lady Gresham be call by process  into the exchequer to answer a fine to the queen for the say a alienation of  the say manor be hold of the queen in capite without licence f because now the  say new use raise be good and the manor pass accord to the limitation of they  forasmuch as now the d also if tenant in tail accept a fine come Ceo c it do  not alter his estate case of fine   a per hale CJ green v proud Mod a fine  levy by tenant for himself divest the estate of the remainderman or  reversioner leave in he only a right of entry Goodright v forester east but  the fine of tenant for life do not discontinue the reversion or remainder a  discontinuance be effect only by a fine which be levy by one who have the  inheritance such as a tenant in tail and who must be seize by force of the  entail driver v Hussey h black do v Jones barn Cress SC dow Ryl such a fine  take away the entry and drive the remainderman or the reversioner to his  formedon Stapleton v Sherrard I vern Salisbury v Bagot I Chanc case Borey v  smith Freem SC Chan Rep do v Whitehead burr a fine sur to go away levy by  tenant for life be not a forfeiture of his estate piggot v Salisbury Mod  Ludlow v Drummond taunt Seymour v Barker ib b vent say e in more this case be  different state it be there say that each of the power require a tender of S  and that the donee tender S but the doubt be whether a tender of the two sum  in one entire sum will do the report of this case in dyer a pl and in Leon  agree with coke Vid Sugden on power rd edition a Savil f fine upon alienation  be now abolish by stat car cap coke report b er p revocation be by authority  of parliament adjudge good but because at the time of the death of the say sir  Thomas which be before the say Act of Elizabeth the lady Gresham be discharge  by survivor and every alienation without licence imply a wrong and a trespass  and a Act of parliament to which the queen and all her subject be party and  give consent can do a wrong for this reason the lady Gresham be discharge of  the fine for the say alienation which have upon the matter their essence by  mean of the say Act of parliament as to the three point which do not tend  direct to the conclusion of the case it be resolve that after the bargain and  sale Elizabeth can not enter for her estate be to commence in possession after  the death of the say John by the say custom and so if a copyholder for life  where the remainder be over for life commit a forfeiture be in the remainder  shall not enter but the lord and he shall retain it during the life of he who  commit the forfeiture g but that shall not b destroy the remainder without a  express custom in such case h and tenant by copy for life where the remainder  be over may a surrender to the lord and he in remainder shall not enter till  after his death for his estate be to commence in possession post death and no  incident of the commonlaw belong to he unless by custom and the chief justice  say that a surrender of copyhold be not to be compare to a surrender at the  commonlaw for if a copyholder in fee I surrender to the use of another for  life no more shall pass from he than shall serve the estate limit to the use  and he who make the surrender shall not pay any fine for readmittance to the  reversion for that continue always in he king and the chief justice further  say that he conceive that if the lord in the case at bar have charge the  inheritance of the copyhold that I Podger shall not hold it charge during his  life b for coke b the mean estate in the remainder preserve the estate of John  Podger by copy from the lord encumbrance vide in Wroteslys case blow Com if  tenant for life grant a rentcharge to one and be in reversion grant a  rentcharge to another and afterward tenant for life surrender the grantee of  the tenant for life shall be prefer c g that the lord and not the remainderman  shall take advantage of such forfeiture Vid roll ab roll ab head v tiler Mod  king v Loder W Jones wade v Bache sand bird v Kirkli cartel SC Mod Mod do v  hellier TR Com dig copyh m vin copyh t c where there be a copyholder for life  and the lord grant the copyhold tenement to another habendum to he for his  life immediate after the death of the tenant for life or post sursumreditum  forisfacturam sive alian determinalionem of the estate of the tenant for life  there it be otherwise stride v Dennison lev SC Skinner sc t Jones in stride v  Dennison the first tenant for life be attaint of felony and it be adjudge that  he in the reversion and not the lord be entitle to the forfeiture it appear  from the report of this case in pollexfen that this resolution in Podger case  be agree to be law and the decision in stride and Dennison proceed upon the  express word of the grant Vid vg m S b roll Rep roll Cr Elizabeth more con Noy  h sergeant hill in a note to his edition of the report intimate that a custom  that the forfeiture of a copyholder for life shall destroy the remainder be a  unreasonable custom Vid Baspole v long Yelv a roll I but if a copyholder for  life surrender to the lord general who grant it for life and after admission  the grantee die the surrender can be admit again to the estate but the lord  shall have it Kinq v Lord cro car Vid Mr hargrave note   Litt b king Vid  Bullen v grant cro Elizabeth SC Leon pale yellow ten roe v Griffiths black b  vin ab copyhold king e pl c   b   light b Cr car Plowd a coke report a er p