of the estate and the copyholder is not obliged to carry his fine always about him. Where the fine is certain, the copyholder is obliged to pay it immediately upon admittance. Refusal to pay Rent. Co. Cop. 225. 31. If a copyholder is bound by the custom to the payment of a rent to the lord, and refuses to pay it, he will forfeit his copyhold. Such a refusal must 57. however be founded on the principle that the lord has Gilb. Ten. no right to the rent; which implies a disclaimer of ante, § 25. the tenure. For if the copyholder admits the lord's claim to the rent, but says he has no money, or makes any other excuse of that sort, it is no forfeiture. Freer, 32. Where a copyholder was absent when the lord Crisp v. demanded the rent, and no person was there to pay Cro. Eliz. it, which is a refusal in law, yet the Court doubted 505. whether it was a forfeiture, as it did not amount to Gilb. Ten. a voluntary refusal and two of the Judges said, there Hob. 135. ought to be a demand from the person of the copy- 225. holder, to make it a forfeiture. 33. Where the estate of a lord of a manor ceases by 8 Rep. 92 a. limitation of a use, and is thereby transferred to another person, who demands rent of the copyholder, and he refuses to pay it, this is no forfeiture, without notice given to the copyholder of the alteration of the use and estate. ance of the admitted. 34. Where copyholds are descendible, the heir is Non-appearbound, on the death of his ancestor, to come to the Heir to be lord's court, and require to be admitted. If he neglects to appear within the time prescribed by the custom of the manor, a proclamation is made for him to come in and be admitted; if he does not then appear, farther proclamations are made, at the two or three next courts according to the custom; and if he does not appear immediately after the last proclamation, the lord may seize the copyhold as forfeited. Gilb. Ten. 231. Lechford's 35. If the heir of a copyholder is beyond sea at the time of his ancestor's death, or within age, or non compos mentis, or in prison, his non-appearance at the lord's court to be admitted, will not amount to a forfeiture. 36. The custom of a manor was that, those who claimed copyholds by descent, ought to come at the first, second, or third court, upon proclamation made, to take up their estates; or else they should be forfeited. A tenant of the manor, having issue inheritable by the custom, died, such issue being at that time beyond sea; the proclamations all passed, and the heir did not appear for two years; upon his return he prayed to be admitted to the copyhold, and proferred the lord his fine in court, which the lord refused to accept, or to admit the heir, but seised the land, as forfeited. It was adjudged, that this was no cause of forfeiture, because the heir was beyond sea at the time of the proclamations; and the lord was Cro. Ja. 226. at no prejudice, for he had taken all the profits of the Underhill v. Kilsey, S. P. Lord Salis bury's Case, land in the mean time. 37. It seems to be now held, that there must be a 1 Keb. 287. particular custom to warrant the forfeiture of a copyhold, by the mere non-appearance of the heir to be admitted. That by the general custom, the lord is only authorized to seise the land, until the tenant comes in to be admitted. It is also required, that all the proceedings be strictly conformable to the customs of the manor; and the proclamations proved viva voce, not by the court-rolls only; otherwise no forfeiture will be incurred. Roe v. 3 Term R. 38. At a court-baron holden for the manor of Featherstone in 1785, the homage presented the death of Sir S. Helier, and an entry of a proclamamation on the rolls was made as follows: "At this court public proclamation was made, for the first time, for the heir of Sir S. Helier, Knight, deceased, to come into court, and be admitted tenant to all and singular the messuages, &c. within the precincts of this manor, whereof the said Sir S. Helier died seised; or else the same would be seised by the lord of the said manor for want of a tenant. But nobody came who shewed any title to the same; therefore such default and this proclamation are recorded." Two other similar proclamations were made, at two subsequent courts, &c. By an entry on the rolls of a small court, and court-baron holden in 1786, it appeared as follows:-" At this court a precept was issued by the steward of the manor, and delivered to W. B. bailiff and officer of the manor, directing him to seise into the hands of the lord, all and singular the several copyhold messuages, &c. which are situate and being in Featherstone, &c. of which Sir S. Helier died seised; and to return the precept at the next court to be holden on, &c." By another entry on the rolls it appeared as follows:-" At this court W. B. bailiff of this manor, and officer of this court, returned the precept which issued and was delivered to him at the last court, holden for this manor, in every thing obeyed and executed; to wit, that he had taken actual possession of, and seised into the hands of the lord of the manor, all those copyholds &c. whereof the said Sir S. Helier died seised, as by the said precept he was commanded." At a subsequent court, the lord of the manor granted the said copyhold premises to a stranger, his heirs and assigns for ever, according to the custom of the said manor, who was admitted tenant, paid the lord a fine of 6921., and made his fealty. The heirs at law of Sir S. Heller did not apply to be admitted till the year 1788, when they were refused; and in consequence thereof brought their ejectment. A verdict was found for the plaintiffs, subject to the opinion of the Court on the above case. After several arguments Lord Kenyon said," The first point made is on the supposed forfeiture, by reason of the heirs of Sir S. Helier neglecting to come to the lord's court to be admitted as his tenants, and to satisfy the lord's claim of the fruits of his tenure. I cannot but observe, that the interest of the lord of this manor was not very deeply concerned in the heir's not coming in to be admitted, because it is stated that no fine was due on admission. The case does indeed state, that he had a minute interest; namely, a relief of 3s. 6d.; but however small this fruit of tenure was, the lord undoubtedly had a right to it; and to see, by the inspection of his court-rolls, who were his tenants. But the severity of the law in these, as in all other cases of forfeiture, warrants the courts in taking care that there is the greatest accuracy in the lord's proceeding. It is so in the case of outlawry, and all cases of criminal proceedings. Several cases were mentioned, which show that a general forfeiture of a copyhold estate, for not coming in to be admitted, does not accrue, unless there be a custom to warrant it. In such cases the lord has only a right to enter into possession, to satisfy himself of the injury he sustains for the want of a tenant; he can only retain the possession quousque. It seemed almost, and would have been very properly admitted in the argument, that if the lord, having a right to seise quousque, did seise absolutely, there was a defect in the seisure which vitiated the whole. But it was contended that there was no defect in the seisure, for that the Court might presume, for any thing that appeared to the contrary, that the lord did only seise till a tenant came in to be admitted; and that omnia presumuntur solemniter esse acta; but I think, that sufficient appears in the case, to show that the seisure was irregular. A seisure generally, and undefined, must necessarily be a seisure of the whole property; if it were not, what other line could be drawn? So an entry upon an estate generally, is an entry for the whole; and if it be for less, it should be so defined at the time. The case however does not rest on this observation, for we collect from subsequent acts of the lord, which are unambiguous, what his idea was when he did seise; for he made an absolute grant of the whole of this property to the defendant, his heirs and assigns for ever, taking a fine of 6921. for his admission. Then I am bound to say, that the lord entered as for an absolute forfeiture; and as this is a proceeding where the most strict regularity is necessary in all its parts, we are warranted in saying that here was no seisure binding on the parties." The other Judges concurring, judgement was given for the heirs of Sir S. Helier. son in Re 39. Where the custom of the manor requires, that of a Pera person taking an estate in remainder, shall come mainder. in and be admitted, the lord may seise quousque the tenant comes in. And the proclamations being in general terms for any person to come in and make title, and the presentment of default being also general, are good; though the person in remainder were known, and named in the surrender. 5 East. 522. 40. In a modern case, which has been already Doe v. stated, where a remainder-man refused to come in Jenney, and be admitted, the custom requiring that persons in remainder should come in and be admitted; there |