bias v bias Feb at the roll copyhold testator seize of freehold and of  copyhold estate unsurrended give all the rest c of his estate real and  personal to his wife her heir c hold clear that the copyhold thus unsurrended  do not pass in equity there be nothing to designate such express intention and  sufficient to answer the word use of real estate without they the case of Judd  v Pratt Ves affirm on appeal by Lord Eldon c Ves can hardly be distinguish  from the above see the report Ves and Ves it will have be otherwise in this  case if testator have not have any freehold estate see church v Mundy on the  appear before Lord Eldon c Ves c or have both have express advice both even  although the copyhold be unsurrended see Goodwin v Goodwin ante Vol and Mr  Scrivens very useful work on copyhold it be to be observe that a considerable  alteration have be late make in the law relative to copyhold by the statute  Geo c which dispense with the necessity of a surrender in respect of all  testator die after the pass of that act upon payment by the person entitle or  claim of all duty fee c that will have be due and Payable in case a surrender  have be make it be also to be notice that it seem most advisable to surrender  to the use of the will in every case where it can be do notwithstanding the  benefit of the act see Scriven on copyhold the act in question be insert  ibidem p in case where copyhold be clear mean to pass but be unsurrended the  want of such surrender supply only in three case videlicet for the benefit of  a wife child and creditor distinction between the supply of a surrender in  favour of wife or child and creditor necessity of surrender now dispense with  by stat Geo ch supplement a seize of freehold and of copyhold of the nature of  burrow English descendible not only to the young son but to the young daughter  which copyhold be not surrender to the use of his will in the introduction to  his will desire all his just debt to be pay and make a provision for his  daughter and for his wife and a far eventual provision for the daughter after  the death of the wife and then all the rest and residue of his estate real and  personal of what nature or kind soever the same may be or consist of at the  time of his death he give to his wife her heir executor administrator and  assign the plaintiff the wife insist that testator have thus make use of a  number of word it take in all sort of estate he may be seize of at his death  Ves sen Ves sen and that the court will supply the want of surrender for this  ought to be consider as if creditor be concern and like I will and will for  defendant the young daughter suppose the wife stand in the next rank to  creditor and the court will supply the want of surrender for the wife yet on  the face of the will a intent shall appear that the copyhold shall pass but  here be no mention of it nor any thing to induce the court to think testator  intend this for her in ithel v bean February ante Ves sen a devise be make of  all real estate subject to payment of debt testator have no freehold but only  copyhold not surrender vesey senior to use of the will Lord chancellor hold  that if testator have any freehold the copyhold will not be liable to payment  of debt but have no freehold it be liable vesey senior er p sir John strange  master of the roll the word use by the testator can possible carry it further  than the general word all his real estate which will of itself take in all the  estate testator be seize of whatever sort without the addition of these  particular word it stand therefore for consideration upon the general  expression of all the rest c there be no case where there be freehold as well  as copyhold and no notice take of the copyhold in the will that the court have  supply the want of surrender where copyhold be devise express to wife child or  for creditor nothing passes in point of law for want of surrender however a  court of equity supply it in those favourable instance for the purpose of the  will but not for other which be on the plain declaration of testator by  express name copyhold estate if he have none but copyhold all my real estate  will have be sufficient to pass the copyhold though no surrender have be make  to use of the will in wms a conveyance be supply in favour of a halfbrother  against a heir at law which afterward be controvert by Lord Hardwicke in atk  as carry the consideration of blood too far wms Cas tempt Talb Eq ab but the  general heir at law or heir by particular custom have be always so favour as  not to be disinherit by implication or inference from the particular word of  the will the case that have be have turn in the construction of these word  upon the question of fact whether the testator have what will answer the word  of his will on which the word will operate then the surrender shall not be  supply as be before Lord Talbot in and the case of Bethlehem hospital June  that all my land will not pass copyhold land nor surrender if there be other  land to satisfy it but if surrender that will explain the general word and  pass it here be that which will come within the description of real estate  then without surrender to use of the will or mention of copyhold the court  will not take it from the heir it be observe as to the principal case of bias  v bias by the master of the roll in Judd v Pratt Ves that the heir may have be  call upon to make his election though it seem never to have occur to any one  to put the case on that ground it be say this ought to be consider as if  creditor but by this will the real estate be not subject to payment of debt as  in the case in William in the present case there be nothing either by act as  by surrender or by word though no surrender to warrant the court to say the  young daughter be disinherit of that which by law ought to descend to her and  that the mother be entitle to the benefit of this copyhold it may also be  observe that the doctrine of election be not applicable to creditor see kidney  v Coussmaker c Ves though in the principal case the bill be dismiss it be  without cost r l the bill therefore must be dismiss and there be a strong case  for this purpose before Lord chancellor and the last Reg lib a fol