## Facts

- In seventeenth-century England, copyhold land was held according to a manor’s customs and recorded on the manor court rolls; copyholders kept a “copy” as evidence of title.
- The manor in question followed the custom of **borough English**, under which (absent an effective disposition) the **youngest son** inherited.
- The copyholder-father attempted to displace borough English by a **surrender** recorded on the court rolls: to the use of himself for life, and after to the use of his **eldest son, Edwards**, and his heirs, **“if he live to the age of 21 years.”**
- The surrender added a proviso: **“provided, and upon condition”** that if Edwards **died before 21**, then the land would **remain to the surrenderer and his heirs**.
- The father died while Edwards was alive but still a minor (about 17).
- After the father’s death, the **youngest son, Hammond**, entered and took possession, relying on borough English and arguing that Edwards had no present right until he reached 21.
- Edwards brought an **action of ejectment** to recover possession from Hammond.

## Issues

1. Whether the limitation to Edwards “if he live to the age of 21 years,” followed by a proviso “provided, and upon condition” shifting the land back if he died before 21, created (a) a **condition precedent** delaying vesting until age 21, or (b) a **condition subsequent** that would divest a vested estate only if Edwards died under 21.
2. If Edwards’ interest was vested, whether that interest entitled him to **immediate possession upon the father’s death** so that he could maintain ejectment against Hammond.

## Decision

- The Court of Common Pleas found for **Edwards** (plaintiff).
- The court treated the “live to 21” language, read with the proviso “provided, and upon condition,” as creating a **vested remainder subject to divestment** if Edwards died before 21 (a condition subsequent), not a remainder contingent on first reaching 21.
- Because Edwards’ remainder was vested, he was entitled to possession at the end of the father’s life estate and could **eject** Hammond despite being under 21.

## Legal Principles

- When language can be read either to delay vesting or to vest immediately with a later defeasance, courts commonly choose the reading that **vests** the estate, unless the instrument clearly requires the opposite result.
- A clause framed as **“provided, and upon condition that”** followed by a gift-over or return of the estate on an event (here, death under 21) is strong textual support for treating the event as **divesting** rather than as a prerequisite to vesting.
- Reading the instrument as a whole matters: the initial words “if he live to 21” are construed in light of the later proviso describing what happens if he does not, which points toward a vested estate that can be defeated.
- In copyhold conveyancing, a properly recorded **surrender** could direct succession away from a manor’s customary descent (such as borough English) by creating a valid future interest in the named taker.

## Conclusion

Edwards v. Hammond holds that a copyholder’s surrender “to the use” of the eldest son and his heirs “if he live to 21,” coupled with a proviso “provided, and upon condition” that the land would remain to the surrenderer and his heirs if the son died before 21, gives the eldest son a vested remainder subject to divestment, not a contingent remainder that vests only upon attaining 21; therefore, when the father died and the youngest son entered under borough English, the eldest son could maintain ejectment and recover possession while still a minor.


Edwards v. Hammond, 83 Eng. Rep. 614 (1683)