xxvi          Introduction to the Legal Procedure.

        to indicate that security was required only in proceedings upon that form,
        in point of fact before the sheriff was permitted to execute the writ in either
        form he was required to take the surety. The writ of replevin, the issue of which
        is noted with frequency in this record, was for trial of a claim to goods as
        owned by the plaintiff but detained from him by the defendant, and it coin-
        manded the sheriff at the outset to seize the goods.
          It will be observed that a great part of the record is taken up with inquiries
        or inquisitions, not in proceedings between private parties, but in proceedings
        on behalf of the Proprietary. The most important are what were called in-
        quisitions or inquests post mortem, and inquisitions ad quod damnum. The
        first, inquisitions post mortem, were ordered in England upon the death of a
        tenant in capite, or one who had held land directly of the King, or of the
        Bishop of the palatinate, for ascertaining what the lands were that had been
        held, of what age the tenant had been, and who was the heir, if any should be
        found, to the end that the King or Bishop should be protected in his rights.
        A statute of Henry VIII had provided in England a special court, the Court of
        Wards and Liveries, to conduct these inquiries; and the tenures inquired into,
        the inquiries, and the court, all, were abolished on the restoration of Charles II.
        In Maryland, a deceased landholder's situation would in all likelihood be known,
        and the writ was applied for in the greater number of instances by a private
        person with the assurance that there was no heir to take, that the land had
        escheated, and that it was therefore eligible for new patenting. Lacking any
        special court for it, the court of Chancery, throughout the time of this record,
        appears to have taken over the inquisitions upon the deaths of tenants of the
        Proprietary, to the extent, at least, of issuing the writs. The Provincial Court
        records contain entries of proceedings in the same cases, and it may be
        proper to classify the cases as those on the common law side. In England there
        were several forms of the writ, all with distinct names, and the same names are
        used in this record. If the writ for the inquiry was issued within a year after
        the death it was known in England as a writ of quem diem clausit extremum,
        from the Latin words reciting the fact of death of the tenant, that is, that he
        had brought his last day to a close. Where a year had elapsed, the writ then
        issued was known as a mandamus. If, after the issue of either form of writ no
        return, or an insufficient one, was made, another might be issued for a better
        or further inquiry, and it would be known as a writ de melius inquirendo.
        When land was omitted from a first inquiry a writ of quae plura would follow.
        A form used when the heir of a tenant died within age was called a writ of
        devenerunt. All were writs for inquisitions post mortem. The return of the jury
        summoned for the inquiry was known as the “office found,” the common ex-
        pression for findings upon inquiries on behalf of the Crown. In Maryland the
        writs were regularly issued to special commissioners; in England, while some-
        times issued to commissioners, they were more often issued to an officer called
        the escheator. While the proceeding in Maryland was commonly instigated by
        a private individual who desired to take up the land as having escheated to the
        Proprietary, it will be noticed that relatives and connections of the deceased
        tenants sometimes applied for a preference, and sometimes got it. The Pro-
        prietary appears to have exercised a discretion in this. These inquisitions in