the deed of bargain and sale, so that no fine can now become payable to the lord out of the bankrupt's estate. But the lord is of course entitled to a fine on the admission of the purchaser.

I apprehend, however, that in the event of the bankrupt's death, and of any delay in the sale by the assignees, or in the admission of the purchaser under the surrender made by the authority of the commissioners, the lord might seise quousque, after three proclamations.

ASSIGNEES OF INSOLVENT DEBTORS.-We have seen that under the act of 7 Geo. 4., c. 57, the copyhold estates of an insolvent debtor become vested in the provisional assignee, and afterwards, by his assignment, in the general assignee (a), without the necessity of an admittance of either the one or the other; so that the lord does not become entitled to any fine out of the estate of an insolvent debtor, but must be satisfied with the fine payable by the purchaser, on his admission under a surrender from the general assignee. If, however, the assignee should die, and the purchaser should not apply for admission under a surrender made by the assignee before his death, the lord, I conceive, might seise quousque after three proclamations.

OCCUPANCY.-We have seen that the principle of general occupancy is not applicable to copyhold lands, except under a special custom extending it to them (b); but it is right to notice, that Sir Edward Coke says (c), "If a copyhold be granted durante vitâ, and the grantee dieth, living cestuy que vie, and a stranger entereth as a general occupant, he shall be admitted, and shall pay a fine."

As there may be a special occupancy of copyholds, a fine is due upon the admission of the heir or other person taking as

(a) Ante, p. 374. And see ante, p. 375, as to the power under 1 W. 4. c. 38, for the court to direct a conveyance of real estate by the provisional

assignee, where no creditor shall have been appointed assignee.

(b) Ante, p. 63.

(c) Co. Cop. s. 56. Tr. 128.

special occupant. So, if a copyhold be limited to A. and his heirs, during the life of B., the lord would be compellable to admit the heir of A. according to the tenor of the grant or surrender, and a fine would therefore accrue to the lord on such admission (a).

Mr. Watkins was of opinion, that the fine of a special occupant should be proportioned to the probable duration of the life of the cestuy que vie, and that if an unreasonable fine were imposed, the court would equally interpose as on an admission upon a strict descent (b).

No fine is due on the release by a rightful tenant to the tenant by wrong, the latter having already been admitted and paid a fine (c).

And as it is not necessary for a disseisee, on entry or recovery by plaint, to be admitted, no fine will accrue to the lord (d).

The trustee, and not the cestuy que trust, is the person to be admitted the lord's tenant (e); therefore no fine can accrue from the cestuy que trust or his assignee or heir, or devisee (ƒ). And as a fine is payable by a mortgagee who takes admission, and by his heir or devisee (g); so, therefore, where a mortgagee has been admitted, the lord is not entitled to a fine from the heir of the mortgagor, nor from the assignee or devisee of the equity of redemption (h); nor from the mortgagee upon a

(a) Co. Cop. s. 56. Tr. 128. Gilb. Ten. 327. Doe d. Lempriere v. Martin, 2 Sir W. Bl. 1148. Ante, p. 64.

(b) 1 Watk. on Cop. 313. Watk. Gilb. Ten. N. 171. p. 476.

(c) Ante, pp. 243, 381. Gilb. Ten. N. 69. p. 411.

(d) Ante, p. 169. Co. Cop. s. 56. Tr. 129.

As to the necessity of entry by a disseisee previous to his surrendering the copyhold lands, vide ante, p. 169.

And see Clerke v. How, 1 Lord Raym. 726. (ubi sup.)

(e) And the trustee shall be reimbursed the fine and fees out of the profits of the estate. Rivet's case, Mo. 890. 1 Watk. on Cop. 293. (n. *.) [2d Ed.]

(ƒ) Ante, pp. 268, 331. Gilb. Ten. N. 69. pp. 410-11. Trinity College, Cambridge, v. Browne, 1 Vern. 441. (g) See Cro. Jac. 403. 2 Pow. on Mortg. 1068, sect. 5.

(h) Ante, pp. 241, 268.

release to him of the equity of redemption by the mortgagor (a).

It belongs of common right to the lord or steward to assess the fine (b), but a custom that a copyholder for life in extremis may nominate his successor to have the copyhold, paying a reasonable fine to be agreed upon with the lord, or, if that fail, to be assessed by the homage; and another custom, that a copyholder for life may nominate one or two that shall have the copyhold lands after his death, for a fine to be assessed by the homage, if they cannot agree with the lord, have been adjudged to be good customs (c).

Where a person has several copyhold tenements by several titles, the lord must assess and demand his fines severally, and there is no distinction in this respect between a customary heir, and a surrenderee, nor is it material, for this purpose, whether the admissions be contained in one or several copies (d).

It has been said, that the fine may not only be assessed, but may be made payable out of the manor (e); such a custom, however, appears much too unreasonable to be supported: the

(a) Hull v. Sharbrook, Cro. Jac. 36. Ante, p. 242-3.

(b) Lord Northwick v. Stanway (or Stanton), 6 East 57; 2 Smith 226. per Lawrence, Just.

(c) Yelmester Custom's case, Noy 2, (cites Powell & Pencock). Crab v. Biles, Ib. 3, cites H. 6 Jac. C. B. 13 Rot. 2613, Raubus v. Mason. And see 1 Roll. Rep. 48. 1 Freem. 494. ca. 669. Ford v. Hoskins, Cro. Jac. 368. Freeman v. Phillipps, 4 Mau. & Selw. 486.

(d) Dalton v. Hamond, Cro. Eliz. 779. S. C. Mo. 622. S. C. (Hobart & Hammond), 4 Co. 28. a. Taverner's case, Ib. 27. a. Hitch v. Wallis, cited Dougl. 729. Co. Cop. s. 56.

Tr. 130. Gilb. Ten. 218. Searle & Marsh, cited in Everest & Glyn, 6 Taunt. 428. And see Fisher on Cop. pp. 97, 120. Grant & Astle, Dougl. 722; but see Whitfield. v. Hunt, cited ib. 727. n.

A surrender by a copyholder to particular uses under which his son should be admitted in tail, would operate as a severance of the estate from any other lands left to descend to such son, or devised to him by his father, so as to entitle the lord and steward to separate fines and fees. Snagg & Fox, Palm. 342.

(e) Yaxley v. Rainer, 1 Lord Raym. 44. 1 Watk. on Cop. 314.

VOL. I.

E E

before cited case of Yaxley & Rainer, is the only authority for this position, and it is to be observed that the fine there was for a license to alien (a), and that the court said, that if it had been for a forfeiture, it might have been otherwise (b).

The sum assessed as the fine, need not be entered on the court rolls, but a demand on behalf of the lord, it being a reasonable and legal fine, is sufficient (c).

It is, however, essential, when an entry is made of the amount of the fine on the rolls of the manor, that the sum actually assessed should appear to be a legal and proper fine, without regard to any sum to be remitted by the lord out of favour; for where the entry in the court rolls was, that the lord had assessed a fine of 1007. but out of favour remitted 40%., which had reduced the fine to 60%., and the jury finding the annual value of the premises to be 30%., gave a verdict for the plaintiff for 607. being two years' annual value; a rule obtained in the Court of Common Pleas calling on the plaintiff to show cause why a nonsuit should not be entered, was made absolute, the court being of opinion, that the assessment was an assessment of 1007., and that the latter part of the entry was nothing more than a remission of the payment of part of that assessment, and observing, that much mischief might arise to copyholders, if similar entries were permitted to be made upon the court rolls of manors (d).

If the fine be certain, the tenant should come prepared to pay it, but the lord cannot refuse admittance because the fine is not tendered to him, even when the fine is certain in amount (e);

(a) Ante, p. 383-4.

(b) See also 1 Watk. on Cop. 317, 318.

(c) Lord Northwick v. Stanway, 6 East 56. In that case, Grose, J., said he had known instances of entries not stating any particular sum assessed for a fine, but only that a certain sum had been offered as a fine, with which the lord was content.

(d) Lord Northwick v. Stanway, 3 Bos. & Pul. 346.

(e) Fish & Rogers, Tr. 4, Jac. B. R. 1 Roll. Abr. 506. (A.) 6 Vin. Cop. (A. c.) pl. 1. Hobart v. Hammond, 4 Co. 28. a, but see S. C. (called Dalton v. Hamond), Cro. Eliz. 779. Mo. 623. And see Skin. 249.

8. Key. & Wallerley 2se BC 925

and when the fine is uncertain, the lord must allow a convenient and reasonable time for the payment of it, and the practice is to fix a day and place for such payment (a).

In some manors it is customary not to take the fine until the succeeding general court, or some fixed period after the admission; but, I apprehend that the lord or steward may refuse to accept a surrender from the person admitted tenant, or to admit his surrenderee, upon a surrender taken by one or more tenants, or the bailiff or reeve of the manor, where a custom of that nature exists, until the fine due on his admission be paid.

A custom not to pay a fine till of full age has been held to be a good custom (b). So also a custom for the lord to seise until the fine be paid (c).

Should the fine be unreasonable, or if the copyholder has good cause for thinking it to be so, he may refuse to pay it, and it shall be no cause of forfeiture (d); but it is proper for the tenant to tender what he conceives to be due, and it was held in the case of Gardiner v. Norman (e), that the fine certain due by the custom, must, in order to save a forfeiture in law, be tendered at the day appointed by the lord for the payment of the fine assessed, and that a tender made at the time of the assessment is not sufficient, sed quære? For although, when the fine is manifestly reasonable, denial of payment will be a cause of forfeiture (f), yet it has been held that the lord is not justified in entering for a forfeiture, if he has not demanded the fine at the time it was due, or some time after, of the

(a) Gilb. Ten. 219. n. (o). Willowes' case, (or Stallon v. Brayde,) 13 Co. 2. Co. Lit. 60. a. N. (1). Hobart & Hammond, (or Dalton & Hamond,) ubi sup. Titus & Perkins, Skin. 250.

(b) Champian & Atkinson, 3 Keb. 90. Lex Cust. 162.

(c) Cro. Eliz. 351, in Jackman & Hoddesdon. Titus & Perkins, sup.

(d) See Dalton & Hamond, (or

person of

Hobart & Hammond,) and Willowes' case, (or Stallon & Brayde,) sup. Barnes v. Corke, 3 Lev. 309. Trotter v. Blake, 2 Mod. 229. Wheeler v. Honour, Sir T. Raym. 42, (cites Parker v. Cook, Sty. 241). S. C. 1 Keb. 154. 1 Sid. 58.

(e) Cro. Jac. 617. Skin. 250. (ƒ) Co. Lit. 60. a. N. (1), cites Parker's case.