More v Pitt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1826 |
| Date | 01 January 1826 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 89 E.R. 175
THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
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 operates as an extinguishment; and a voluntary grant of the copyhold by the disseisor is void against the disseisee, A disseisor lord may take a surrender to an use, but he cannot thereupon grant a larger estate than what was in being before. A copyholder for life in possession ; one Thornburgh was copyholder for life in reversion, according to the custom of the manor; and Corbett was lord of the manor by disseisin. Thornburgh makes a letter of attorney to surrender his estate to the lord of the manor, or his steward for the time being, ad faciendum inde voluntatem suam ; and Corbett afterwards grants this estate surrendered by Thornburgh to J. S. for his life ; afterwards the King being restored, ant] this manor belonging to the Bishop of Worcester, Morley the bishop grants it to the defendant; and the plaintiff claims under Thornburgh that made the surrender, who was yet living. In this case it was held clearly, 1. That a disseisor, lord of a manor, may take a surrender to use; because there he is but a conduit pipe to pass the estate through, and takes nothing by way of interest; and therefore without question if a copyholder in fee surrenders to the use (d) According to 2 Mod. 292, the Court is represented to have said that upon the death of Bell without issue the defendant was his heir and had a good title, if not as heir at law, yet she might take by way of executory devise as heir of the body of her father. The case has been therefore considered as an authority for extending an executory devise twenty-one years beyond a life in being; for there could be no heir of the body of R. Wharton till his death, and the estate was not to vest in such heir till the age of twenty-one. See ante, note (a). Fearne Ex. Dev. 432-3, 7th edit. Stephens v. Stephens, C. T. Talb. 228; and the remarks of Ld. Hardw. in Lovell v. Lovell, 1 Atkins, 12. Mr. Hargrave observes upon it that "it was a decision by the Com. Pleas while Lord North was Chief Justice, and he concurred in it; and I know not how entirely to reconcile it with the strong part he afterwards took against the executory trust of a term of years in the great case of the Duke of Norfolk, except that distinctions between...
To continue reading
Request your trial