HERTOTS. 443 



it at the the time of the testator's decease. " Cox v. Godsalre and West y. 

 Moore prove that emhlements are part of the stock and will pass under the 

 description of ' the stock on a farm' " ; per Lord Gifford M. R. {BJcilie v. 

 Gills). Aiid in Rudge v, Winnell, Lord Langdale M. R. also ruled that 

 devise of real estate in the occupation of the testator in trust for A., 

 with a bequest of " all his live and dead stock, &c., and all his personal 

 estate whatsoever and wheresoever " to B. passes the emblements on the 

 real estate to B. 



At the death of a tenant of the manor, it was the custom to appraise 

 his eflFects, and the best chattel was declared due to the lord, and styled 

 a heriot. Heriots, like quit-rents and ground-rents, are not rateable to 

 the poor {Rex v. Vandenvall). They may be proved by parol to be due 

 on the death of a tenant, though not expressed in the lease ( White v. 

 Sayer.) As a custom may be valid for a heriot on the death of every 

 free tenant holding for a less estate than fee-simple, it follows that it 

 may be valid in respect of a tenement of free lands, held in fee-simple 

 of a manor, as the nature of that estate is not inconsistent with such a 

 custom ; and therefore to prove such a custom, presentments of the 

 deaths of other tenants of other free tenements held in fee of the 

 manor, and the seizure of heriots thereupon, are admissible {Damerell v. 

 Protheroe). And qmcre whether the ancient lease having reserved as a 

 heriot the best beast of the lessee (being one of the lives), Ms executors, 

 administrators, assigns, or such person as should be in possession of the 

 jjremises, and entitled to the same hy virtue of the lease, a lease reserving 

 only the best beast of the lessee (being one of the lives) be good ; but a 

 lease is not bad under the power, which reserves the best beast of the 

 person or persons ivho for the time heing shall he tenant or tenants in 

 possession of the premises {Doe dem. Douglas v. Lock). 



Where, from an entry on the rolls of a manor, it appeared that it was 

 presented, in 1778, to be the custom "that every copyhold tenant 

 that holdeth copyhold lands upon death or alienation ought to pay a 

 heriot," the custom had been in accordance with the entry, but there 

 was no instance shown of an alienation of joint tenants, or of a claim 

 of a heriot from each of several joint tenants on alienation, it was held 

 that iviihout proof of a special custom (of which there was none) one lieriot 

 only was due on a joint alienation of several joint tenants {Padwick v. 

 Tyndale). 



But Holloway v. Berkeley decided that when a copyhold tenement 

 holden hy heriot custom becomes the property of several as tenants in com- 

 mon, tlie lord is entitled to a heriot from each of them ,- but if the several 

 ]X)rtions are re-united, in one person, one heriot only is payable. So in 

 Garland v. Jekyll, it was held that a copyhold property which when in 



