an act of parliament which is to operate generally, and giving the benefit of the exemption to the office of constable. It is clear from the acts cited, that the legislature has sometimes considered the constable as a parish officer, and that will sufficiently justify us in giving the same construction to the word parish-office here. It is admitted by Mr. LITTLEDALE, that, notwithstanding, the appointment of constable is not from the parish, but is from the leet and for the manor, still, if, by accident, the manor and the parish happen to be co-extensive, the person having such a certificate is exempt. But that goes to admit, what is now contended for, by the defendant; for that makes the construction of the word parish office not strictly literal. Then the words of the act are not extended beyond their fair import, if the jurisdiction of the constable goes over the township and district which does not extend beyond the limits of the place where the felony is committed; but it might in the case of The King v. Darbyshire have extended to a place where the party had no merit in the respect mentioned in the act of parlia ment. This is the very reverse of that case." JUDGMENT for the DEFENDANT. ZOUCH on the demise of THOMAS FORSE against HENRY 1806. MOSELY versus STONEHOUSE. Оссирансу. A. is admitted tenant of a copyhold in reversion, for the life of B. after the deaths of C. and D.; before the rever- Stat. 29Car.II. sion or remainder vested in possession, A. the grantee died, c. 3, 14Geo.. c. 20, Eject and afterwards, upon the death of the first taker and his ment. cestui que vie, the administrator of A. was admitted, as administrator, for the life of B. and brought ejectment : Held, that he could not recover; for copyholds are within the statutes of special occupancy, viz. the statute 29 Car. II. c. 3, and 14 Geo. II. c. 20, and the admis not 1806. Zoveн dem. versus sion gave no title and granted no interest, but such as he claimed as administrator. THIS was an ejectment to recover one moiety of a copyhold tenement in the manor of Froom VanTHOMAS FORSE church, in the county of Dorset, and it was tried HENRY FORSE. before Mr. Justice LE BLANC, at the last assizes for the county of Dorset, when the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of this court on the following case: At the court baron of his grace the Duke of Bolton, for his manor of Froome Vanchurch,, in the county of Dorset, held the 24th day of July, 1761, the lord of the manor, by his steward, granted to Robert Forse the reversion of a moiety of a copyhold tenement, by copy of court-roll as follows "at this court the Jord of the manor, by his steward, granted to Robert Forse of Porten, in the county of Dorset, yeoman, the reversion of a moiety of a customary tenement, and forty-six acres of land, meadow and pasture, with the appurtenances within this manor, now in the possession of William Forse, which he claimed to hold for his life, by copy of court-roll, of this manor, dated the 29th day of April, 1725, remainder by another copy dated the 6th of May, 1740, to Henry Forse son of the said William Forse, for his life, to have and to hold the reversion of the said premises with the appurtenances to the said Robert Forse for the life of Henry Forse, the son, (aged ten years,) at the will of the lord, according to the custom of the said manor, from and immediately after the surrenders, forfeitures, or other determinations of the estates of the said William Forse and Henry Forse his son, of and in the said premises, paying the yearly rent of fifteen shillings, and a herriot, when it shall happen, and by and under such other works, suits, services, and customs, as are usually done and paid for the same; and for such estate in reversion the said Robert Forse (as sole purchaser) paid the lord, for a fine, 381, but the 1806. admittance and fealty of the said Robert Forse and ZoUCH on the Henry Forse his son, is respited. William Forse continu- TOMASFORSE ed seised till the year 1764, when he died; and upon his death, the said Henry Forse, the son of W. Forse, entered and continued seised till 1795, when he died, and upon his death, his widow entered and continued in possession till 1803, when she died. The above named Robert Forse, to whom the reversion was so granted, died intestate in 1775, leaving six sons, William Forse the eldest, Henry the cestui que vie, named in the said grant, Thomas Forse the lessor of the plaintiff, and three others, and upon his death, administration of his effects was duly granted to two persons, who are since dead; after which, viz. February 1st, 1804, administration de bonis non was granted to the lessor of the plaintiff, who, on the 25th day of August, 1804, was admitted tenant to the said moiety for the life of the said Henry Forse, the son of Robert Forse. No evidence was produced of any custom in the manor, that the cestui que vie, not taking by the habendum, should have any beneficial interest. The question for the opinion of the court is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover? ་ TAUNTON, W. P. for the plaintiff. "The question in this case is, whether an executor de bonis non of one who was admitted tenant in reversion of a copyhold per autre vie, can maintain ejectment for the same. The lessor of the plaintiff founds his title upon the original grant of the reversion to his intestate on the 24th of July, 1761, and on the admission of himself, 25th August, 1804. He then divided the question into four points as follows: first, what estate the lessor of the plaintiff would have at common law before the statutes of special occupancy 29 Car. II. c. 3, and 14 Geo. II. c. 20; and he contended on this Сс NO. XXIX. N, S. demise of. HENRY FORSE. versus 1806. head, that even before these statutes, the estate would ZOUCH on the still have subsisted, and would not have been deter demise of mined by the death of the grantee for life. Secondly, THOMASFORSE that, by these statutes, the copyhold was in the lessor HENRY FORSE. of the plaintiff as special occupant; notwithstanding that by the common law, there could not be an estate by general occupancy of a copyhold, because upon the death of the tenant, the estate was in the lord. Thirdly, if the lord is entitled to enter, he is only entitled to enter as trustee for the executor the tenant per autre vie, and even a court of law, seeing where the right is, and seeing the ground of the admission of the lessor of 'the plaintiff, will give effect to his title. Or fourthly and lastly, that the admission passed a right of entry to the lessor of the plaintiff on which he is entitled to recover. First, all grants must be taken most strongly against the grantor; and a grant to a man of a copyhold, enables him to alienate for his own life, notwithstanding his assigns are not mentioned in the grant; and then of such an estate as this which is to continue for the life of another, the administrator of the grantee is the assignee in law. There is indeed as to this point no decided case, either the one way or the other; but yet, at common Jaw, there can be no estate by occupancy of a copyhold, because as it is said in Smartle y. Penhallow,* the lord might enter, and it is in that case considered as settled law, although there is a dictum to the contrary in Coke's Copyholder; + and surrenders are construed as conveyances at common law, Fisher v. Wegg Burgess v. Wheat, Bucknal's case. If a lease is made to A. during the lives of B. and C., by the death of one of them, the estate is not deter 6 Modern, 66. + s. 56, p.115. +1 Peere Will. 14. § 1 Bl. 167. ¶ 5 Co. 9 b. 1806 ZOUCH on the demise of THOMAS FORSK mined, though it would be otherwise if it were a condition instead of a limitation. So in Rosses' case,* a lease to A. and his assigns for life, and for the lives of B. and C. is a lease for three lives. So a grant to J. S. is a grant for life; and a grant to J. S. for the HENRYFORSE. life of A. and B. is a grant for and during the life of either of them. The principal point, however, is in case the grant by the common law determined by the death of the grantee, whether by the statute 29 Car. II. c. 11, s. 9, it is continued to his personal representative, who is admitted by the lord under that grant." Lord ELLEN BOROUGH, C. J. "In point of fact, he is only admitted as administrator de bonis non, and there are no terms in the admission which amount. to a grant; for that was intended only to invest him with the title which he claims as administrator. are no words of grant made use of by the lord." There TAUNTON. "The words of the statute are any estate per autre vie, shall be devisable by a will in writing, signed by the party so devising the same, or by some other person in his presence and by his express directions, attested and subscribed in the presence of the devisor or by three or more witnesses. And if no such devise thereof be made, the same shall be chargeable in the hands of the heir if the same shall come to him by reason of special occupancy as assets by descent as in case of lands in fee-simple; and in case there be no special occupant thereof, it shall go to the executors or administrators of the party that had the estate thereof, by virtue of the grant, and shall be assets in their hands." Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. "Have you any cases 5 Co. 13, b. + Cro. Eliz. 181. Cro, Jac. 282. versus |