288 CUNNINGHAM v. BROWNING.—1 BLAND.

was yet found difficult, or impracticable to have any such inquests
of office executed for his benefit, and as a safeguard to the rights
of the citizens; and therefore, during that time, his agents issued
warrants, and made out grants for all escheated lands without any
previous inquest. After the government was restored to the Lord
Proprietary, the granting of escheated lands without any previous
inquest of office was still continued; Greares v. Dempsey, 1 H. &
McH. 65; Lord Proprietary v. Jennings, 1 H. & McH. 119, 138:
Thomas v. Wootton, 4 H. & McH. 428; and this practice having
been followed up in the same way ever since, under the State gov-
ernment, the holding of an inquest of office in any such case must
now be considered as having been thus virtually abolished. Land
Ho. Ass. 160, 102,170; Owings v. Norwood. 2 H. & J. 90. He who
discovers the escheat and sues out an escheat warrant, is entitled,
as formerly, to have a patent for the land on paying two-thirds of
its value; which value, instead of being ascertained, as formerly,
by inquest, is now estimated and returned to the surveyor under
his oath of office. Land Ho. Ass. 339,435,438; 1800. ch. 70. It
has been laid down since the Revolution, that the State, as to the
lands of the Proprietary, stands in his place; and that they re-
mained subject to all claims and rights created and acquired under
the Proprietary; Land Ho. Ass. 300; Ringgold v. Malott, I H. & J.
317; and further, that by the Acts of Confiscation, passed during
the Revolutionary War, all British propeity was seized and vested
in the State without office iouud. Land Ho. Ass. 301. 332; Ring-
gold v. Malott, 1 H. & J. 317; Owings v. Norwood, 2 H. & J. 96;
Hall v. Gittings, 2 H. & J. 112.

What is here said, in regard to inquests of office, must how-
ever be understood as applying only to cases where the lands of
a citizen have escheated on his death intestate without heirs; for
* as to an alien, it has been held, that his title, which he has
308 acquired by purchase, is good against every body but the
State, and cannot be divested without office found; McCreery v.
Allender, 4 H& McH. 409; McCreery v. Wilson, 4 H. & McH. 412;
Fairfax^. Hunter, 7 Cran. 619; although it would secrn, that, as
regards the interests of creditors, it may be considered as having
devolved upon the State without any previous inquest of office.
1799. ch. 79, s. 7. It is now unnecessary to say any thing of for-
feited lands, of which it was formerly made the duty of surveyors
to give notice, Land. Ho. Ass. 439, since it has been declared, that
no conviction or attainder shall work corruption of blood or for-
feiture of estate. Decl. Eights, Art. 24; 1809, ch. 138, s. 10.

In the original conditions of plantation, it was declared, that a
legal title should be made to all purchasers from the Proprietary
by a grant under the Great Seal of the Province; Land Ho.
Ass. 30, 39; thus indicating at once, and from the outset, to
all purchasers, that there should be a Chancellor, or keeper of