1st, Whether any heriot should be paid, because the copyholder did not die seised. As to this the Court held clearly, that a heriot was due and payable; for notwithstanding the ouster and disseisin, the copyholder still continued legal tenant; and such disseisin might have been by combination to defeat the lord of his heriot. 2d, To whom the heriot should be paid. As to this the Court held clearly, that the remainder-man for 4,000 years could have no right to it, because the copyholder was never his tenant; and as to the grantee for 99 years, it was doubted, because the moment the copyholder died, his estate was determined. Trin. Coll. v. Brown, 994. 53. A heriot is only due on the death of the legal tenant; not on the death of the person entitled to an equitable estate in a copyhold. And the lord is only entitled to a heriot on the death of the tenant who has an interest in the copyhold; not on the death of persons for whose lives a copyhold is granted. 54. If a copyholder for life, on whose death the 2 Ld. Raym. lord is entitled to a heriot, becomes a bankrupt, and the copyhold is assigned for the benefit of the creditors; this transmutation of the tenant, by act of parliament, shall not work a prejudice to the lord, who shall have a heriot on the death of the copyholder; but not on the death of the assignce. 1002. 55. No heriot is due on the death of a married Anon. 4 Leon. 239. woman, because she can have no chattels. 56. In many manors there is a customary composition as 10s. or 20 s., in lieu of a heriot, by which the lord and tenant are both bound, provided it be an indisputably ancient custom. But a new composition of this kind will not bind the heirs or representatives of either party; for that amounts to the creation of a new custom, which cannot now be done. 8 Rep. 106 b. Snag v. Fox, Palm. 342. Attree v. Scutt, 57. If a heriot be due by the custom of the manor, upon the death of the tenant, and the lord purchases part of the tenancy, such purchase will not extinguish the lord's right to a heriot; for the tenant is still within the lord's homage. 58. Where a copyholder is bound to pay a heriot, and he conveys part of his copyhold to one person, and part to another, the heriot will be multiplied; it is the same if he devises it by will to several persons in severalty. 59. It was resolved in a modern case, that where a 6 East, 476. copyhold estate was divided into two parts by a devise of it to two persons, as tenants in common, each of the devisees was subject to the payment of a separate fine, and to a several heriot: that if one of the two persons surrendered his moiety to the other, the estates notwithstanding continued several, and were subject to several heriots. For if an estate held by indivisible services was divided and holden in severalty, and afterwards, by the act of the parties, came again into one hand, the services which were multiplied should continue to be payable, not as for one tenement, but for each portion respectively, that is, as for distinct tenements; for they did not again become, in respect of the lord, one tenement. That this doctrine was as applicable to an estate held in common, as to estates held in severalty. 2 Inst. 131. Austin v. Bennett, 1 Salk. 356. Parker 60. In the case of heriot custom, the lord may seize the best beast of the tenant, or whatever is due as a heriot, wherever he can find it, either within the manor or out of it; even on the highway. 61. In trover on not guilty before Lord C. J. Holt, the question being about a horse seized for a heriot; it was held, that either heriot service or heriot custom was seizable off the manor, because it lies in prender. 62. If a man shortly before his death bargains and Dyer, 351 b. sells all his horses to another, without any consideration, to defraud the lord of his heriot, it is void. 63. The Court of Chancery will not interpose in Wirty v. Pemberton, favour of the lord in the case of heriots, because the 2 Ab. Eq. custom is unreasonable; the loss a family sustains 279. being thereby aggravated. Attainder of Treason or Felony. SECTION 1. AS Copyholds were originally held by the lowest in and most abject vassals, the marks of feudal dominion continue much stronger in this tenure than any other. So that copyholds are not only subject to the same forfeitures as estates held in socage, but also to a variety of other forfeitures, particularly incident to them. 2. If a copyholder be attainted of high treason, his estate becomes forfeited to the lord of the manor; Hawk. P. C. not to the crown; except by the express words of an act of parliament. So if attainted of felony. c. 49. § 7. Skin. R. 8. 3. A person to whom a copyhold is devised, but who is convicted of felony, and hanged, before admittance, does not forfeit such copyhold. 2 Wils. R. 13. 4. Mr. Jefferies devised a copyhold to his niece Roe v. Hicks, Elizabeth Jefferies, who was convicted and hanged for the murder of the testator. Miss Jefferies was not admitted, nor ever did any act to show that she was the lord's tenant. The Court was of opinion that Miss Jefferies had no legal interest in the copyhold, so could have no legal remedy to recover it and having neither jus in re, nor ad rem, could not forfeit any thing. contrary to § 74. 5. Copyholders can only alienate their estates in Alienation the manner prescribed by the custom; any other the Custom.. mode of alienation will operate as a forfeiture. Thus it is said by Littleton, that if a copyholder aliens by deed, it is a forfeiture; for a copyholder being tenant at will, such an act would amount to a determination of his will. n. 3. 6. Lord Coke says, if a copyholder makes a char- 1 Inst. 59 a. ter of feoffment, or a deed of demise, for life, with- Co. Cop. out giving livery of seisin, it is no forfeiture, because § 58. nothing passes. According to Roll, though livery is 1 Roll. Ab. not made, yet the feoffment is a forfeiture, if there 508. pl. 12 be a letter of attorney to deliver seisin; because then the feoffee may at any time perfect the conveyance. And that Lord Coke ought to be understood with that distinction. & 13. n. 3. · Mr. Hargrave does not acquisce in Roll's doctrine. 1 Inst. 91. "For (says he) the criterion of forfeiture of a copyhold by alienation, seems to be the actual passing of an unlawful estate, to the lord's prejudice. In the case of the feoffinent, no interest can pass until livery; nor is it strictly true that the feoffee may at any time perfect the conveyance, for it is possible that before |