On the sale of copyholds, the purchaser, in the absence of special stipulation, is equally entitled to have the whole legal and equitable estate vested in him as in the case of freeholds (a). In copyholds, however, what comes under the head of the legal estate is the tenancy of the lands sold on the court rolls of the manor of which they are held, for the customary estate comprised in the contract for sale; and what the vendor has to prove is that he can confer this right. He will have discharged his obligation if he show either that he is himself the tenant on the rolls of such an estate, and so can surrender the same to the purchaser's use, or that he can, by the exercise of a power of appointment, give the purchaser a direct right to be admitted of such an estate, or that some other person is such a tenant, and that he (the vendor) is entitled to call upon that tenant to surrender to the use of the purchaser (b). It must be borne in mind, however, that if there is no tenant upon the rolls, and the vendor cannot by appointment give the purchaser a direct right to be admitted, the vendor must, at his own expense, procure a tenant to be admitted who shall be able to execute the necessary surrender to the purchaser. And for this purpose the vendor must himself pay all fines due to the lord in consequence of such admittance (c). For example, if A., a tenant of copyholds in customary fee, devise them to B. and C. on trust for sale, and these devisees after A.'s death sell them to D., B. and C. cannot at once give D. the right to be admitted, but must themselves first be admitted tenants on the rolls; after which they will be enabled to execute such a surrender to D.'s use as will give him the legal right to be admitted. But if A.'s will had contained a power (as distinct from a trust) for B. and C. to sell his copyholds, or if A. had devised his copyholds to such uses as B. and C. should appoint for the purpose of giving effect to any sale made by them under the trust declared in that behalf, then, if B. and C. were to sell to D. before the lord had seized quousque for want of a tenant, D. would be entitled to claim admittance directly as being in fact the person entitled under A.'s will (d). It must be remembered that the lord is entitled to exact the fine due by the custom on every change in the tenancy of lands held of him by copy of court roll. Thus, if A., tenant of copyholds in customary fee, die intestate leaving B. his heir, and B. die intestate without having been admitted and leaving C. his heir, and then 0. sell the land to D., C. must, as we have seen, procure himself to be admitted in order to give to D. the title promised by the contract. But in order to procure his admittance, C. will have to pay a double fine, namely, that due on the devolution of the estate from A. to B. as well as that payable on his own admission as B.'s heir (e). The lord is not, however, entitled to any fine by reason of the devolution of any equitable estate or interest in lands holden of him by copy; he is only concerned with the changes in the legal tenancy upon the court rolls (f). So that if A., tenant of copyholds, sell them to B. and surrender to B.'s use, and B., without being admitted, sell the lands to C, and C, remaining unadmitted, sell to D., there is no need for either B. or C. to be admitted in order to complete C.'s contract with D., but C. can call upon A., who has remained the tenant upon the rolls, to surrender to D.'s use, and upon the execution of such surrender D. will be entitled to be admitted on payment of a single fine. If A. had died, his heir or devisee (g) would have to be admitted at C.'s expense in order to surrender to D.; but the only fine payable by C. would be that incurred by the admission of A.'s heir or devisee (h).

Copyholds.

(a) Above, p. 163; Re Wilson's and Stevens's Contract, 1894, 3 Ch. 546, 549.

(b) Above, pp. 1(34 - 166.

(c) See Bradley v. Munton, 16 Beav. 294; Puramore v. Green-slade, 1 Sm. & Giff. 541; White-leg v. Taylor, 35 L. T. N. 8. 187 J

He Thames Tunnel, etc. Act, 1900, [1908] 1 Ch. 493.

(d) Glass v . Richardson, 9 Hare, 69.S, 2 De G. M. k G. 658; R v. Wilton, 3 B. & S. 201; Stag.

V. & P. 562; Davidson, Prec. Conv. vol. ii. pt. i. p. 375, n., 4th ed., vol. iv. p. 82, n., 3rded.; Wms. Real Prop. 494, 21st ed.

(e) Morse v. Faulkner, 1 Anst. 11, 13; Morris v. Clarkson, 3 Swanst. 558, 563, 566; Watson, B., Garland v. Alston, 3 H. & N. 390, 393, 395; Londesborough v.

Foster, 3 B. & S. 805; 1 Scriv. Cop. 383, 405, 3rd ed.

(f) Hall v. Bromley, 35 Ch. D. 642.

(g) See above, pp. 216, 217, 221, 222.

(h) 1 Scriv. Cop. 404, 3rd ed.; Garland v. Alston, 3 H. & N. 393; Hall v. Bromley, ubi sup.

If A. sell and surrender copyholds to the use of B. and his heirs and B. die intestate before being admitted, then under the Land Transfer Act, L897 (i), B.'s equitable estate in the land would vest in his administrator, who would thus have the right to be admitted (k). It is a question whether the administrator claiming to be admitted under A.'s surrender would have to pay a single or a double fine (l). But as A. remains the lord's tenant on the rolls until some one else is admitted (k), and would be a trustee for B. and his heirs, it appears that B.'s administrator might call upon A. to surrender to his use, and might well claim to be admitted under this surrender on payment of a single fine(m). And if in the case put B.'s administrator, before being admitted, convey his estate in the copyholds to B.'s heir (n), it appears that B.'s heir will then be entitled to be admitted, and no fine will be payable in respect of the conveyance from the administrator to the heir (o). But if B. had devised his estate in the copyholds or appointed executors by his will, it appears that his executors, taking under the Land Transfer Act, 1897, or his devisee in case the executors assented to the devise (p), could only be admitted on payment of a double fine; since the Wills Act provides that, where a testator was entitled to be admitted to any real estate of the nature of copyholds and might, if he had been admitted thereto, have surrendered the same to the use of his will, and shall not have been admitted thereto, no person entitled or claiming to be entitled to such real estate in consequence of such will shall be entitled to be admitted to the same except on payment of all such stamp duties, fees, fine and sums of money as would have been payable in respect of the admittance of the testator thereto and his subsequent surrender thereof to the use of his will, in addition to the stamp duties, fine, etc. payable on the admittance of the person so entitled or claiming (q).

Fines on admittance after the death of an unadmitted surrenderee.

(i) Stat. 60 & 61 Vict. c. 65, s. 1 (1); above, pp. 228, 229, 235.

(k) See Payne v. Barker, O. Bridg. 18. 21 - 25, 33; Doe d. Tofield v. Tofield, 11 East, 246, 250; 1 Wat. Cop. 307 and n. (2), 4th ed.; Wms. Real Prop. 485, 21st ed.

(l) In 1 Wat. Cop. 364, n. (1), and 1 Scriv. Cop. 404, 405, 3rd ed., the opinion is expressed that the heir of an unadmitted surrenderee is entitled to be admitted on payment of a single fine; and this opinion appears to be fortified by the rule laid down in Hull v. Bromley, 35 Ch. D. 642. Mr. Elton, however, asserted that if the surrenderee die before admittance his heir must pay two fines; Elton on Copy-holds, 169 (182, 2nd ed.): but the authorities cited in the 2nd ed. only) contain nothing to support this view. In Garland v. ton, 3 H. & N.390, 395, Watson, B., said that, if the heir is entitled only on the ground that the ancestor was entitled to be admitted, and the lord could have compelled the ancestor to cutin and pay his fine on admittance, the heir must pay a double fine. These conditions are not fulfilled in the case of the heir of an unadmitted surrenderee; since the lord could not have compelled the ancestor to come in and be admitted, the tenancy continuing to be full in the person of the surrenderor. It is thought that the case of the heir of an unadmitted surrenderee is distinguishable from that of an heir claiming a copyhold tenement by descent after the death and intestacy of an unadmitted heir of an admitted tenant, who also died intestate; see above, pp. 348, and n. (e), 349, n. (k).

(m) This appears to follow from the decision in Hall v. Bromley, ubi sup. But of course if the administrator took and obtained admittance upon a surrender to him from A. his legal title would date from that surrender only and would not relate back to the surrender from A. to B.; see Wms. Real Prop. 486, 21st ed.

(n) See above, pp. 230, 233.

Devise by an unadmitted surrenderee.