298 CUNNINGHAM «. BROWNING.—1 BLAND.

cheatable, that the person who died seized was indebted to the
caveator, and others who were entitled to have the lands sold,
and the proceeds applied in * satisfaction of their claims.
319 1785, ch. 78. But the most common ground of caveat is,
that the lands specified in the certificate on which the patent is
asked, are not vacant; but are, in whole or in part, included in an
elder warrant, entry, survey, or patent. Land No. Asa. 83; West
v. Hughes, 1 H. & J. 9. And, wherever the same land is contained
in the certificates of both parties to a caveat, it is considered,
that each of the parties has caveated his antagonist. West v.
Hughes, 1 H. & J. 10.

The method of bringing a controversy, instituted by a caveat, to
a hearing appears to have been taken from that pursued in Eng-

Baltimore, be, and it is hereby declared to be good, but that each party shall
bear his own costs.

HAMMOND, IN BEHALF OF THE BALTIMORE COMPANY v. GODMAN.—HANSON,
C., 28th December, 1799.—The caveator having taken out a subpoena from.
Chancery, for the defendant to appear here on this day, to answer the said
caveat; and the defendant appearing, as he alleges, in consequence of the
service on him of the said subpoena, which is by him produced, there was
presented to the Chancellor in behalf of the said caveator, and as the sup-
port of his caveat, a deed from Daniel Nicholson, for conveying to the com-
pany aforesaid the land in question. In the said deed, Daniel Nicholson is
recited to be the heir of John Nicholson, the patentee of the said land, on
whose supposed dying seized without heirs, the escheat warrant in this case
was obtained by the defendant. No proof, except the said recital (which
cannot operate otherwise than against the grantor, and those claiming under
him,) is offered, to prove that the said land actually descended from the
patentee to the said Daniel Nicholson, or that the said patentee ever con-
veyed or devised the said land to any person whatever, or that the said pat-
entee has left any person capable of taking as his heir.

On a certificate, returned to this office, in consequence of an escheat war-
rant, it is the settled rule and practice, founded on the plain principle of
benefit and convenience to the State, and on common sense, that the caveator
of the certificate shall shew a title in himself, or in some other person. If
he cannot do this, why should not the person, who applies for the land as
«scheat, and is willing to pay the State accordingly, be allowed to take a
patent. The State assuredly is interested in, or at least cannot suffer from
permitting him to take it as escheat, on. the prescribed terms. He alone
incurs a risk: and the patent, which he obtains, is not to invalidate, or
affect, the right of any other person. The patent puts him in a condition
fairly to contest the question with any person, who claims the land, under
a superior title: aad it is certainly nothing more than right, that the title be
fairly tried in ejectment. Whatever title the aforesaid company has in the
land, it will not be affected by a patent to the defendant.

The Chancellor makes these remarks, because he conceives it probable,
that the practice and rules of this office may not be generally understood.

On the whole, it is adjudged and ordered, that the caveat of William
Hammond against Samuel Godman's certificate of a tract of land, called
Nicholson's Delight Rectified, be, and it is hereby declared to he, dismissed;
and that the said caveator pay to the defendant, Samuel Godman, all costs,
by him incurred in defence of the caveat aforesaid.