Moor against Pit
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 86 E.R. 1076
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER.
[287] case 168. moor against pit. The surrender of a copyhold for life to a lord who is a disseisor of the manor, ut inde facial voluntateiu suam, is void, and does not extinguish the copyhold ; but a surrender to the use of a stranger, though a disseisor, and admittance thereon, is good.-S. C. 2 Jones, 153. S. C. L Vent. 359. S. C. Skin. 28. S. C. 2 Show. 153. S. C. 1 Freem. 245. Special verdict in ejectment.-The case was this: A copyholder for life; the remainder for life. He in remainder for life surrenders the copyhold to the lord pro tempore (who was a dissvisor only of the manor), ut inde facial vnluntalem suam. The disseisor grants it to a stranger for life. The disseisee enters. The stranger dies. The question was, whether the disseisor, or he in the remainder for life, who made the surrender, had the better title 1 So that the point was, whether this surrender by a copyholder in remainder into the hands of the dinseisor be good, and shall so extinguish the right to the copyhold, that it shall not be revived by the entry of the disseisee into the said manor 1 It was said, that in some cases a surrender into the hands of a disseisor was good ; that is, when the surrender is made to him to the use of another and his heirs, and he admits him, there the person admitted claims not under the lord, but under the (a) But see the case of Claud v. Smith in Mr. Rose's edition of Comyns' Rep. page 72, and the cases there cited ; and the case of Emmerson v. Inchbrid, in Mr. Bailey's edition of Lord Ray. 728. 2MOD.S8S. HILARY TERM, 29 AND 30 CAR. 2. IN C. B. 1077 copyholder who made the surrender ; for nothing passes to the lord, but only to serve the limitation of the use, 1 Eoll. Abr. 503. But in this case the grantee must claim from the lord himself, and not from the copyholder, because he had but an estate for his own life, with which he wholly departed when he made the surrender to the use of the dUseisor himself. Maynard, Serjeant, in Trinity term following, argued on the other side. There are two sorts of surrenders of a copyhold.-First, proper.-Secondly, formal and ceremonious. If a surrender be to the lord to the use of another, this is no proper surrender; for no estate passes to the lord, he being only the instrument to convey it to the surrenderee, and this is but nominal. But here the surrender was to the use of the lord...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
More v Pitt
...English Reports Citation: 89 E.R. 175 THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS More and Pitt case 257. more v. pitt. S. C. 2 Mod. 287. T. Jo. 153. 1 Vent. 359. Skin. 28. 2 Show. 153. Semb. a surrender by a copyholder to a disseisor, lord of a manor, ad faciendum inde òvoluntatem suam op......
-
Anonymous (1794) 2 Show KB 153
...against Moore case 133. pitt against moore. A surrender by a copyholder to a disseisor of the manor does not extinguish the copyhold.-S. C. 2 Mod. 287. S. C. 2 Jones, 153. S. C. 1 Vent. 359. S. C. Skin. 28. S. C. 1 Freem. 245. Error on a judgment in ejectment in the Court of Common Pleas, w......