Opinion
(1793.)
On demurrer, the case was: An infant copyholder in fee, without license of his lord, made a fee for years rendering rent, and when of full age accepted the rent, and afterwards ousted his lessee. Crawley, Serj., said he might well do so, although it is true that the lease of an infant rendering rent is only voidable, yet in the case of a copyholder it is otherwise, for the lease is a disseizin of the lord, and a forfeiture of his estate. And the grant of anything by an infant is absolutely void unless it be by livery with his own hands, or for his benefit. But, e contra, it was said that this is a good lease until it be avoided. If a copyholder makes a lease, it is a forfeiture. H., 37, East and Harding's case, rot., 49. Copyholder makes a lease for years, to commence in futuro, it is a good lease, but no forfeiture in case of an infant. For if the lord enters upon him he may reenter, as in 8 Rep. Infant tenant for life made a feoffment, the lord enters, the infant may reenter.
The court agreed that it was no disseizin, viz., that the least of a copyholder, without license, is no disseizin to the lord. But the counsel were directed to argue the question whether it should be void in respect of the forfeiture. Afterwards it was debated afresh, and held that the lease was not void; but judgment given against the infant. JONES, J., said on the first day, in the C. B. leave without license had been adjudged no disseizin. Nota that the plea was adjudged vicious in form, as well as the bar, replication, and declaration. Jones, 157; Noy, 92; Godb., 456, 364; 1 Cr., 498; Mo., 392; 1 Roll., 507, 508; Ow., 63; Godb., 456.