copyholds for non-payment of rent or of a fine must show that he made a personal demand on the tenant (q). 6. For Non-appearance to take Admittance. Where copyholds are descendible, the heir is bound on the death of his ancestor to appear at the lord's court to be admitted. The lord of a manor has a right upon the death of the copyholder to the possession of the copyhold, unless, after due proclamations made, an heir at law, or some other person entitled by the custom of the manor to be admitted, makes a claim, or unless he has admitted a tenant, who against him, therefore, has a right to possess the copyhold (r). The lord of a manor may seize a copyhold estate as forfeited for want of a tenant, where the heir does not come in to be admitted (s). An absolute forfeiture of a copyhold estate, for not coming in to be admitted, does not accrue, unless there be a custom to warrant it, but it is only forfeited quousque (t); and even where there is a custom to forfeit absolutely, persons under disability, unless expressly named, are not bound by it (u). If the heir of the copyholder is beyond sea at the time of his ancestor's death, or an infant, lunatic or in prison, his non-appearance to be admitted does not amount to a forfeiture (x). At common law the lord might seize quousque in the case of an infant and other persons under disabi (q) Hob. 135. (r) Doe d. Twining v. Muscott, 12 Mee. & W. 840. (s) 1 Roll. 568. (t) King v. Dilliston, 1 Salk. 386; 1 Show. 83; Earl of Salisbury's case, 1 Lev. 63. (u) 9 Q. B. 487, 512. (x) Lechford's case, 8 Rep. 99; Underhill v. Kilsey, Cro. Jac. 266. of seizure quousque. lity (y). No infant, feme covert or lunatic shall forfeit any copyhold land for neglecting or refusing to be admitted, nor for omitting or refusing to pay any fine imposed upon admittance (z). Any of them may controvert the legality of any fine imposed which shall not be warranted by the custom of the manor, or Lord's right which shall be unlawful (a). The lord's right of entry by a seizure quousque is not taken away by the 1 Will. 4, c. 65, s. 9; that section protects the right of a feme covert from forfeiture properly so termed, to which the custom of particular manors renders estates liable for not appearing at the lord's court (b). In cases where the lord has only a right to enter into possession to satisfy himself for the injury he sustains for want of a tenant, he can only retain the possession quousque (c). The term "forfeiture" primâ facie means the loss of the estate; the loss of the profits quousque is not properly a forfeiture, but is rather in the nature of process at the instance of the lord, and by way of cape or distringas to compel appearance by the heir, than a forfeiture, and therefore the court held that a succeeding lord could avail himself of it, which he could not do if it was a forfeiture properly so called (d). By the general law of copyholds, independent of any particular custom, in order to enable the lord to seize a copyhold quousque, for the purpose of com (y) 8 Rep. 100b; 9 Q. B. 513. (2) 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 65, s. 9; 16 & 17 Vict. c. 70, s. 112. (a) 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 65, s. 10; 16 & 17 Vict. c. 70, s. 112. (b) Doe d. Twining v. Muscott, 12 Mee. & W. 832; Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal Company, 15 Sim. 433; 9 Q. B. 469; see Doe d. Tarrant v. Hellier, 3 T. R. 162, decided on the similar repealed stat. 9 Geo. 1, c. 29. (c) Doe d. Tarrant v. Hellier, 3 T. R. 170. B. & Ad. 746; Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal Company, 9 Q. B. 511, 512. pelling the tenant to come in and be admitted, it is necessary that three proclamations should be made at three consecutive courts (e). Although the lord of a manor proceeds in the first instance on his right to enter and seize quousque for want of a tenant, if that be answered he may nevertheless recover on a right of entry and seizure until the fine is satisfied (ƒ). By the written customs of the manor of Hackney (confirmed by stat. 21 Jac. 1, c. 6, private), every person to whose use lands are surrendered "ought to come within three years" after the surrender is presented and be admitted (sect. 34). It was held, that this custom was only for the benefit of the lord, who might waive it and grant a valid admittance after the expiration of three years. Therefore, where P., copyholder of the manor, surrendered to the use of W., who was admitted more than three years after presentment of the surrender, it was held, that W., after admittance, might maintain ejectment against P. and all claiming under her (g). The heir of copyhold lands not appearing on proclamation, the lord seized quousque; afterwards the heir claimed, and the lord declining to admit him, on the supposition that another party had obtained title, the heir obtained a rule nisi for a mandamus to admit. On discussion of the rule, it was ordered, by consent of the heir and lord (no other party appearing), that an ejectment should be brought to try the right, the heir being lessor of the plaintiff, and the lord defendant; and that the rule for a mandamus should be enlarged. in the meantime; and the parties agreed to waive (e) Doe d. Bover v. Trueman, 1 B. & Ad. 736. Where presentment is necessary. technical objections on the trial. The heir proved title, and the defendant put in a will of the ancestor, devising the land to the London Annuity Society. No further evidence being given for the defendant, the judge left the case to the jury on the proof of title in the lessor of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff had a verdict. On motion to enter a nonsuit, it was held, that plaintiff was entitled to recover, for that the lord, though he had seized quousque, could not hold against the heirs on the mere proof of a devise to parties who had not claimed admittance, and of whom nothing was known (h). 7. Of Presentment of Forfeitures. This seizure by entry may in some cases be made immediately upon the commission of the act of forfeiture, but in others not till after presentment made by the homage; as to which the distinction seems to be that when the act of forfeiture is of a public and notorious nature, as attainder for treason or felony, which is notorious from the publicity of conviction and the attainder on record (i), or refusing in open court to do suit or service, &c. (k), or other matter which must necessarily be within the lord's knowledge (7) and is not of such a nature as to be of doubtful construction, no presentment will be necessary, because the reason of the presentment is to give the lord knowledge of the forfeiture, which of course fails when he has such knowledge already (m). But where the (h) Doe d. Le Keux v. Harrison, 6 Q. B. 631. (i) Benson v. Strode, 2 Show. 152; Sir T. Jones, 190; Cornwallis's case, 2 Ventr. 38; Gilb. Ten. 318, 5th ed. (k) Co. Cop. s. 57, Tr. 132. (2) Co. Cop. s. 57, Tr. 131. (m) Benson v. Strode, Sir T. Jones, 190; 1 Watk. Cop. 416, 4th ed. act of forfeiture is of such a nature that the lord cannot be supposed to have knowledge of it without express notice being given him; or if it be of such a nature that either the fact of commission or the actual nature and operation of the offence be questionable, the lord cannot, it should seem, make a seizure till presentment of the cause of forfeiture be made by the homage (n). forfeiture. If a copyholder, being seised by force of several Extent of copies of several parcels, by several tenures commits a forfeiture in one, it is no forfeiture of the rest, as if he commit waste in black acre, it is a forfeiture of the whole acre, and if waste be committed in one acre it is a forfeiture of twenty acres, if held by one tenure: for the condition in law annexed to the whole estate is broken, and the lord may enter for the forfeiture (o). But where there are several tenures, though in the hands of one copyholder, there are several conditions in law annexed to the several parcels, and therefore the breach of the one is not so of the other (p). 8. Of Dispensation with Forfeitures. Acts of forfeiture incurred by committing waste, refusal to perform service or to pay rent, will be considered as dispensed with by subsequent acts, as accepting or distraining for rent, or by other acts of the lord acknowledging the copyholder to be his tenant (q). An admittance by a lord having a legal title will operate as a complete dispensation with a previous forfeiture, but it is otherwise in the case of a wrongful lord, whose admittance will not bind the (n) Cornwallis's case, 2 Ventr. 38; see Cro. Eliz. 499; 1 Watk. Cop. 416, 417, 4th ed. (0) 4 Rep. 27 a; 1 Watk. Cop. 407, 4th ed. (p) Gilb. Ten. 282, 5th ed.; Fuller v. Terry, 1 Rol. Abr. 509. (q) Co. Cop. s. 61, Tr. 140; 1 Watk. Cop. 419, 4th ed. |