1833. DOE dem. LEACH against WHITAKER. admitted. Secondly, the court held by the steward out of the manor is void. The following authorities shew that a steward cannot grant or admit at a court held out of the manor. Melwich's case(a), fourth resolution, recognised in Clifton v. Molineux (b); the duke of Suffolk's case, cited by Popham J. in Sands v. Drury (c); Co. Litt. 58 a.; and Gilbert's Tenures, 250 (d). In Marke v. Sulyard (e), a copyhold granted at a court out of the manor was confirmed in equity against the lord who made it; so that there the party was compelled to seek relief in equity even against the lord by whom the grant was made. In 1 Watkins, 252., under the head of " Admission," it is stated, that "as the presence of the tenants is not necessary on the admission of a copyholder, the lord or steward may admit out of court as well as in." And afterwards, in p. 253., "It is acknowledged that the lord himself may admit out of the manor; and though it is said that a steward cannot do so, yet most of the cases evidently suppose such admission to have been at a court held out of the nanor. Now, it is clear that a court cannot be held out of the manor, unless it be by special custom, as where a court is held in one manor for a whole honour in which there are several manors; and therefore this reasoning does not apply to an admittance merely as an admittance, as an admittance may most certainly be out of court. And as to the case of Tukeley v. Hawkins (g), so far as it relates to this point, it seems to be completely answered by the (a) 4 Rep. 26b. (c) Cro. Eliz. 814. (b) 4 Rep. 27 a. (d) See all these authorities referred to in the judgment. (g) 1 Ld. Raym. 76. reasoning reasoning in that of Dudfeild v. Andrews (a), which appears to apply as strongly to an admittance as to a surrender." Now, Dudfeild v. Andrews is an authority only to shew that a steward may take a surrender out of the manor as well as out of court; and it is conceded he may do so out of the manor (b): but there is a distinction between a grant and an admittance. The admittance completes the title, but the surrenderee takes only from the surrenderor. A grant supposes the estate to have got back to the lord, and to be re-united to the manor. The lord may, perhaps, authorise the steward to grant, but the grant alone is not legally operative. If the lord himself granted out of court and out of the manor, and delivered the rod, or accustomed symbol, the delivery of the symbol would be equivalent to livery of seisin under a feoffment; but, nevertheless, the grant would be only an inchoate act until enrolment, and would not alone be legally available. Secondly, conceding that acts done at a court held out of the manor are good as acts done out of court (which seems contrary to the decision in Clifton v. Molineux (c)), and that the lord himself may admit or grant out of the manor, the steward cannot even admit out of the manor: and, supposing that an authority may be given by the lord to the steward to do acts, not only out of court, but even at a void court, here no authority was given to the steward to make voluntary grants out of court: and without a special authority, a steward can only perform acts ministerially in court. The steward here was empowered "to make any voluntary grant of customary or copyhold lands or tene (a) 1 Salk. 184. (b) Note 387. to Co. Litt. 58. 1833. Dok dem. LEACH against WHITAKER. ments, 1833. DoE dem. LEACH against WHITAKER. ments, and to give a license or licenses to demise or otherwise, as he should think fit, and either in or out of court, as fully as the lords might or could do." Now, the words, "either in or out of court," apply only to the giving of licenses. It is usual for the lord and steward to grant licenses, or dispensations of forfeiture, out of court, and beneficial that it should be so; but it is not necessary that grants should be made out of court. Assuming, however, that the deed of 1823 gave C. Leake an authority to make grants out of the manor, as the special agent or attorney of the lords farmers, the grant in question neither was, nor purported to have been, made in pursuance of that authority: it professes, on the face of it, to have been made by C. Leake, acting in his character of steward, at a court where the homage were sworn; it cannot operate, therefore, as an execution of the special authority given to Leake to make grants as the lord might do. But, further, a grant made out of court, with delivery of the rod or other symbol of investiture, is not legally operative until certified and enrolled at a legal court, so as to form part of the rolls of the manor: Calthrop's Readings (a), p. 36, 37. Therefore, even if the grant can be considered as an act done out of court, still the plaintiff had no legal title at the time of bringing the ejectment, inasmuch as the grant of 1825 had never been presented and enrolled at any court legally holden, so as to constitute the grantee tenant by copy of court roll. The nature of the tenure requires that every act should be entered on the roll of the court. If the court at which the acts were done was void, then the (a) Printed with Coke's Copyholder, 5th edit. 1650. acts acts should have been presented and enrolled at some subsequent court: but here no court was held subsequently to the void court at which the grant was made. 1833. Dor dem, LEACH against In Kitchin on Copyholds, 165. it is said, "The high WHITAKER. steward may admit out of the court by special usage and custom within the manor used; for one which holds by copy of court roll ought to have his estate entered in the court roll, and his admittance to be entered in the court; and for that, if the under steward or the high steward which hath no patent, as above, take surrender out of the court, and present that in court, and the tenant be in the court admitted, it is good, for it is the lord, by his steward, hath admitted, and the admittance makes a copyholder, and the entry of that in court makes him tenant by copy of court roll; for copyholder is he which holdeth by copy of court roll." In Co. Copyholder, s. 46. it is said, "The power of the steward goeth beyond the power of the under-steward, that the steward can make an admittance out of court, and it shall stand good if entry be made in the court roll, that he that is admitted hath paid his fine, and hath done fealty; but the under-steward, though he may take a surrender out of the court, yet he cannot make any admittance out of court without special authority or particular custom." In Watkins, vol. i. p. 81., it is said, "If admittance be immediately made by the lord or steward taking such surrender, yet such admittance should be regularly notified at the next court day, for the information of the tenants. This, too, was more immediately necessary in ancient days, as, in case the tenants should have known any objections to the person so admitted, of which the lord might have been ignorant, 1833. Dox dem. LEACH against WHITAKER. ignorant, they might have informed him of them; from which he might have been induced to resume the estate, as having conferred it on a person who was unworthy of the grant. Add to this, that it must be regularly inserted on the court rolls of the manor, by a copy of which he is to hold." And it has been held that a surrender out of court to the use of his will, made by the surrenderee of a copyhold before his admittance, is of no effect, and cannot be made good by his subsequent admittance: Doe v. Tofield (a). [Littledale J. You apply your argument, also, to grants by the lord himself.] They are not evidence of title until they are entered on the roll. [Littledale J. Suppose there be a distinction as between grants made by the steward and by the lord; a private individual may make an attorney for special purposes: and may not the instrument of September 1823 be considered a general power of attorney to act for the lord in these matters ?] It might, but the grantee would not become a copyholder by the delivery of the mere symbol, unless there were evidence of the grant on the manor rolls. There can be no legal evidence of a grant without shewing that it has received the character of a court roll. The delivery of the symbol would not alone be evidence of the seisin. So a feoffment could not be proved by a person merely having seen livery of seisin. But, again, the grant is void for want of the reservation of the usual services. First, two rents are reserved, without distinguishing how much is payable for each tenement; and, secondly, a heriot is reserved for each tenement, whereas one heriot only was reserved (a) 11 East, 246. by |