284 CUNNINGHAM v. BROWNING.—1 BLAND.

or a writ of escheat, a diem clausit extremum, a mandamus, a melius
inquirendo, or the like; or by an inquest of office taken by the
escheator * in virtue of his office. Raysi»g\t Case, Dyer,
303 208; Page's Case, 5 Co. 52; Doe, Lessee of Hayne, v. Bed-
fern, 12 East, 96: F. N. B. 506, 569; 4 Inst. 225; Gill. Exch. 103,
109; 2 Blac. Com. 244; 3 Blue. Com. 258; Shelf. Lun. & Idiots, 75.
But it not unfrequently happens, that the king's title to lands,
which has thus accrued to him by confiscation, forfeiture or escheat,
remains wholly unknown to the public officers whose duty it is to
have it distinctly and specially replaced in his hands by an inquest
of office; therefore, in such cases, where an individual by petition
to the king first makes known the fact, that there is such an inte-
rest; and prays some reward upon the ground of discovery, if it
can be made out; the proper proceedings are thereupon instituted;
and if the escheat be established, the petitioner is usually rewarded
with a lease of the property for his discovery. Moggridge v. Thack-
well, 1 Ves. 71.

Considering the numerous and various matters of public con-
cern by which the attention of the king is presumed to be un-
ceasingly engaged; in order to prevent mistake, imposition and
fraud, it is provided, that all his grants must pass through certain
preliminary grades and forms. The proposed grant is by a war-
rant from the crown first put into the form of a bill by the attor-
ney and solicitor general, which is then to be sealed with the privy
signet by the principal secretary of state, and approved and signed
by the king; it is then carried to the keeper of the privy seal, who
makes out a writ thereupon to the Chancery, which, if no objec-
tion be apparent, or then interposed, is a warrant to affix the great
seal to the patent. Upon which it is enrolled, within the time
limited by law, in the Perry Bag or the enrolment office, which
appears to have originally constituted a part of the Court itself,
and which is, for all such purposes, a legal Court of record. Vernon
v. Benson, 9 Mod. 48; Ex parte Koops. 6 Ves. 599: Ex parte Beck, 1
Bro. C. C. 578; Attorney-General v. Stewart, 2 Meriv. 153; 1 Mad.
Chan. 4. But if before the great seal has been put to the patent
the proposed grantee dies, the application so totally fails, that the
whole proceeding must be revived, or renewed by the heir or per-
on who succeeds to the pretensions of the applicant. 1 Boz. His.
Mary. 258. The object of all these several forms is, that the pro-
posed grant may be narrowly inspected by all those officers whose
duty it is to inform the king if there be any thing contained in it
which is improper or unlawful to be granted; indeed, it is said to
be the duty of all the king's subjects to see, that he is fully in-
formed as to such matters. Com. Dig. tit. Pat. C. 5 & D; Bac.
Abr. tit. Prerogative F; 2 Inst. 555; Gilb. For. Row. 12; The Case
of Alton Woods, I Co. 52.