ADDEND A.

Page 46, at end of first paragraph.

A feme covert who surrenders copyhold lands ought previously to be examined separately from her husband by the steward of the manor, although by special custom such examination may be made before two customary tenants. (Driver d. Berry v. Thompson, 4 Taunt. 293. See 1 Watk. Cop. 89, 4th ed.) A married woman is to be separately examined on the surrender of an equitable estate in copyholds, as if such estate were legal. (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 74, s. 90. See Shelford's Real Property Statutes, 382, 5th ed.)

It was held, that a surrender of a copyhold estate, to which a feme covert was entitled, after secret examination by the steward, to the use of her husband, in his presence and with his assent, testified by his immediate admittance, was valid. (Scamon and others v. Maw, 3 Bing. 378; S. C. 11 Moore, 243.)

A surrender by the wife of a copyholder, with his consent, and after having been separately examined, to the use of a purchaser from the assignees of the husband, who had become bankrupt, was held effectual to bar her right of freebench, if any such existed by special custom, although at the time of such surrender, the purchase not having been completed, the purchaser had not any legal estate in the premises. (Wood v. Lambirth, 1 Phill. C. C. 8.)

Page 65, at end of first paragraph.

A copyholder for lives, by his will, dated in 1815, gave, devised and bequeathed his copyhold estates to his wife so long as she should remain a widow, and if she should marry then to his daughters J. and S. and their heirs, and for want of such issue then to A. and her heirs for ever. It was held, that J. and S. took as joint tenants for life, with several inheritances in tail and with cross-remainders in tail. It was held also, that a quasi tenant in tail in remainder of copyhold estates pur autre vie could not, at least before the passing of the act for the abolition of fines and recoveries, 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 74, bar the

remainders over without the concurrence of the tenant for life, whether claiming under the same instrument or not. (Edwards v. Champion, 21 Law T. 293; Slade v. Pattison, 5 Law J. (N. S.) Ch. 51; Shelford's Real Property Statutes, 283, 284, 5th ed.)

Page 96, at end of first paragraph.

One of two joint tenants, who was a married woman, joined with her husband in surrendering their estate and interest in copyholds for lives, to the intent that the lord should regrant the same to such person or persons as the husband should by will appoint. The wife died in the lifetime of her husband and her sister, the other joint tenant. The husband afterwards died, having by his will appointed the surrendered share to his executors. It was held by Knight Bruce, V. C., that there was a severance of the joint tenancy, but it was considered by Lord Cranworth, C., on appeal, that the surrender was not of itself sufficient to sever the joint tenancy, where the will made in pursuance of it did not come into operation until after the survivorship had accrued. (Edwards v. Champion, 21 Law T. 293; 1 De G. & S. 75.)

If one of two joint tenants in fee surrenders his part to the use of his will and devises his share to a stranger in fee, this will be a severance of the joint tenancy, and the devisee will be entitled to be admitted to a moiety, under the doctrine of relation to the time of the surrender. (Co. Litt. 59 b.; Porter v. Porter, Cro. Jac. 100; Gale v. Gale, 2 Cox, 156; Allen v. Nash, 1 Brownl. 127; 1 Watk. Cop. 130, 161, 4th ed.)

tance when required in

execution of power in fa

vour of person already

Page 106, at end of sentence in 17th line from top. By the custom of the manor of T., containing copyholds of New admitinheritance, when a copyholder in fee devises land to such uses as J. S. shall appoint, and dies, and his death is presented, the lord, after three proclamations, may seize until admission of the customary heir or some other person seeking admittance, and the heir or such other person may be admitted to hold for the admitted. intents and purposes declared by the will, and under and subject to the powers contained in the will, and the heir or person so admitted pays the same fine as upon an admittance to a fee simple, and when, after such admission, J. S. appoints, and the instrument of appointment is enrolled, the appointee is admitted, whether or not there has been any other admittance before enrolment. It was held that, although the person admitted before execution of the power be himself the heir, and the power be afterwards executed in his favour, he must, after the execution of the power, be admitted again, and pay the fine, before he can surrender the estate. For that immediately on

the execution of the power the effect of the first admittance expires, and there is a vacancy on the court roll. (Reg. v. Corbett, 1 Q. B. (N. S.) 836.) Erle, J., in giving judgment, said, "The surrender is tendered on the part of a bargainee under the power of appointment, the question is whether the bargainee, having been in fact once admitted and having paid a fine, is entitled to exercise the rights of a tenant without a second admittance and fine. The custom appears to be, that, upon such a will as this, some person whom the executors name is admitted and pays a full fine; and that upon the execution of the power the appointee is admitted, also upon the payment of a fine. Here the person who has been finally appointed was the person admitted in the first instance, and he claims to be entitled to surrender in the character of appointee. But his tenancy under the original admittance has ceased as much as if it had been the admittance of a stranger. It is therefore the same case as if any third person, upon being appointed, had claimed to surrender without being admitted. He must pay the fine again." (S. C., ibid. 854.)

Page 116, at end of first paragraph.

In the appointment under the 28th section of the Trustee Act, 1850, of a new trustee of copyholds, where the consent of the lord of the manor is not obtained, the customary heir of the last surviving trustee will be ordered to do all such acts as will duly vest the copyholds in the new trustee. (In re Hey's Will, 22 Law J. Ch. 248.)