Vol. 1. 508. pl. 11. Co. Cop. § 58. Leases contrary to the Custom. 1 Bulst. 190. Jackman v. livery, the feoffor may revoke the power of attorney, or the attorney may die, or refuse to execute the authority." 7. It is also said in Roll's Abridgement, that if a copyholder bargains and sells his copyhold to another in fee, it is a forfeiture; although the deed be not enrolled. But this position has been denied by Lord Coke. 8. It has been stated, that a copyholder may make a lease for one year. But if he makes a lease for 4 Rep. 26 a. any longer term, whether by indenture or parol, without the consent of the lord, it is a forfeiture; Hoddeston, unless there be an express custom to warrant it. Thus, where a copyholder made a lease for three years, to begin the next Michaelmas term, and the lessee died before Michaelmas, it was held that it was a forfeiture. Cro. Eliz. 351. East v. Harding, Cro, Eliz. 498. 4 Rep. 26 a. 1 Roll. Ab. 507. pl. 8. Cro. Ja. 308. Mathews v. 1 Roll. Ab. Cro. Car. 9. By the particular custom of some manors, a copyholder of inheritance may lease his land for three years, without the consent of the lord. 10. Where a copyholder leased for one year, and so from year to year, during the life of the lessor; reserving to the lessor in every year the 25th day of March; it was held to be a forfeiture. For it was a lease for two years at least, reserving one day: so that a greater estate than for one year passed in interest. And the reserving a day in every year was but a shift, to avoid the forfeiture. 11. A copyholder agreed to make three several leases by indenture, one to commence after another; 508. pl. 10. there being two days between the end of the first, and the commencement of the second, and so between the second and third. He made them accordingly, and sealed them at the same time. This was held to be a forfeiture, for it was an apparent 233. fraud, and a greater estate than for one year passed presently. Licence of the Lord. 12. It has been stated, that a lease for any number Unless by of years, made by licence from the lord, is not a forfeiture; and that in such case the lessee may assign ante, c. 3. $ 20. his term, or make an under-lease, without any new I Roll. Ab. licence; for the interest of the lord is discharged by 508. pl. 14. the licence. 13. Lord Chief Baron Gilbert says, if the lord Ten. 296. licences the copyholder to let for five years, and he lets for three, this is good. So if the lord licences a copyholder for life to let for five years, if the copyholder so long live; and he lets for five years absolute, this is good; for the limitation is implied Hall v. Arby law, and so need not be expressed. But if the copyholder had an estate in fee, it had been a forfeiture of his estate to make an absolute lease; because in that case he did more than his licence allowed.. rowsmith, Poph. 105. son shall en 14. Where a copyholder made a lease for a year A Covenant only, according to the custom; and covenanted that that a Perafter the end of the year, the lessee should have the joy, is no Forlands for another year, and so de anno in annum for feiture. ten years; it was held to be no such lease as would case, make a forfeiture; because the lessee had a lawful Cro. Ja. 301. estate but for one year only. Montague's 15. Lord C. B. Gilbert seems in the first instance Ten. 233. to doubt this case, because the words covenant and grant make a lease. He afterwards however says,- Tit. 32. c. 5. "But in another case it was held that these words, by construction, might make a lease, where the lands might be let; but otherwise where the lands could not be let. Which distinction seems very reasonable; for the words themselves do not import a lease; and it would be a very injurious construction to make Tit. Lease, 1. 6. 1 Inst. 59 a. n. 4. them a lease, and so a forfeiture, when they only import of themselves a covenant." 16. It is said in Bacon's Abridgement, that in such a covenant it would be better if the words were, to permit and suffer the lessee to hold the lands. For a covenant in that form respecting freehold lands, would not amount to an immediate lease; because the words permit and suffer would prove that the estate was still to continue in him from whom the the permission came. For if any estate thereby passed to the covenantee, he might hold and enjoy it without any permission from the covenantor. Therefore in such case the covenantee would only have the bare covenant for his security of enjoyment; without actual estate made to him. any 17. Mr. Hargrave appears to acquiesce in this doctrine" Because though in general a covenant amounts to a lease, yet it seems harsh to give such a construction, where a lease amounts to a forfeiture; and the intention of the parties may have effect by of agreement." And in a modern case it was 2 Term. R. settled, that an executory agreement, for a lease of a copyhold, did not operate as a forfeiture. Doe v. 739. Waste, ante, c. 3. § 8. 4 Rep. 27 a. Co. Cop. § 57. Owen 17. way 18. Every species of waste, whether voluntary or permissive, not warranted by the custom of the manor, will operate as a forfeiture of a copyhold. 19. Lord Coke says, if a stranger commits waste upon a copyhold, without the assent of the copy4 Rep. 27 a. holder, it will not operate as a forfeiture. Gilb. 235. Tit. Copy- Rook v. 1 Ves, 462. In Comyn's Digest, the contrary doctrine is said to have been settled in Lutw. 802. But Lord Hardwicke appears to have considered copyholders as answerable for waste, in all cases; except where occasioned by the act of God. Vincent, 20. A copyholder cut down more timber than he. Attorney could justify, and a bill being brought against him in General v. Chancery, for a discovery; he demurred, because it 2 Ab. Eq. would subject him to a forfeiture, as being waste. Doe v. The demurrer was allowed. 378. Wilson, 11 East, 56. Tenure. 21. If a copyholder disclaims holding of his lord, Disclaiming or swears in court that he is not the lord's copyholder; or if the steward shows the court-roll to a $57. copyholder, to prove that his land is held by copy, and the copyholder asserts his estate to be freehold, and tears the court-roll; these acts will operate as a forfeiture. 22. But if a copyholder, in presence of the court, Idem. speaks irreverent words of the lord, as that he exacts and extorts unreasonable fines, and undue services ; this is fineable only, and no forfeiture. If he says in court that he will devise means to be no longer the lord's copyholder; this is neither cause of fine nor forfeiture; for perhaps the means he intends are lawful, by conveying away his copyhold. Services. 506. 23. Copyholds are forfeited by the neglect or re- Refusal to fusal of the tenant to perform the services required perform the by the custom. Thus, if a copyholder neglects to 1 Roll. Ab. appear at the court, after summons, he will forfeit Gilb. Ten. his estate. To make this a forfeiture, there must be 229. a particular warning to each tenant, or a general notice within the parish; after which it is a forfeiture, without any express tenants. Wennibank, 3 Buls. 368. 24. A copyholder neglected to do his suit and Haramond v. service for the space of three years together. The question was, whether this was a sufficient cause of forfeiture. It was said by the Court that it was no Gilb. Ten. 230. Co. Cop. § 57. Idem. cause of forfeiture, if a warning was not given by the lord, of the time when his court was to be held, and notice thereof given to the copyholder himself: that the withdrawing of his suit by a copyholder was only finable; but if he refused to do his suit and service, then it was a forfeiture. 25. Where the lord required the copyholder to do his services, and he answered that if they were due he would do them, but it should be tried at law whether they were due or not; this was held not to be a forfeiture. 26. If a copyholder is confined by sickness, or is afraid of being arrested, or is a bankrupt, he will be excused from attending the lord's court. 27. When the copyholders are assembled in the Dyer, 211 b. lord's court, they are bound to do the proper business of the court; and if they refuse, it will amount to a forfeiture. Refusal to pay Fines. Dalton v.. Hammond, Cro. Eliz. 779. Co. Cop. § 57. 28. The refusal of a copyholder to pay the fine due on his admittance is a forfeiture, provided such fine be certain; where the fine is uncertain, a refusal to pay the fine assessed by the lord, upon the ground that a greater fine is demanded than is warranted by the custom, will not amount to a forfeiture. 29. If the fine be uncertain, though a reasonable fine be assessed, yet as no man can provide for an uncertainty, the copyholder is not bound to pay it presently upon demand; but shall have a convenient time to discharge it, where the law does not Cro. Ja. 617. appoint a day certain for its payment. If however it is not paid on the day appointed, the estate will be forfeited. Gardiner v. Willowe's 13 Rep. 1. 30. Though the fine assessed be reasonable, yet the lord must appoint the time and place where it must be paid; because it stands upon a point of forfeiture |