HEPBURN'S CASE.—3 BLAND. 95

sonal estate escheated to the lord, or vested in the king, who,
necessarily, for the public peace and to prevent confusion, suc-
ceeded to the property as a vacant possession. And where in
such case the lands were not, according to the feudal system,
holden of any intermediate lord, they escheated to the king; and,
under his authority, might be sold and the proceeds taken into the
public treasury. When property was forfeited, because of the
treason or felony of its owner, by the ancient law of England, the
creditors, except those who had incumbrances upon the realty, were
left quite without remedy; but in Scotland, it was otherwise, there
the public took the forfeited estate, subject to all charges upon it.
Bedford v. Coke, 2 Ves. 117; Burgess v. Wheate, 1 Eden, 203; Cud-
don v. Hubert, 10 Cond. Cha. Rep. 160. But by the more modern law
. of England, the creditors of a traitor or felon are paid to the ex-
tent of his forfeited property; and for that purpose the king
waives his prerogative and authorizes an administrator to be
appointed, who is held liable to the creditors, as in all similar cases,
so far as the assets will go. Megit v. Johnson, 1 Doug. 542. And
where lands escheat for want of heirs, the lord or king, takes them
subject to all incumbrances and claims for the satisfaction of which
they were bound as the assets of the deceased; and where the king
succeeds to the personal estate of the deceased; because of his
leaving no next of kin, the king takes subject to the claims of the
creditors of the deceased; and the personalty is put into the hands
of an administrator accordingly. Manning v. Napp, 1 Salk. 37;
Jones v. Goodchild, 3 P. Wil. 33; Burgess v. Wheate, 1 Eden, 177;
Middleton v. Spicer, 1 Bro. C. C. 202; Barclay v. Russell, 3 Ves.
436; 1 Will. Exrs. 259.

In Maryland, under the Provincial government, the same rules
and practice prevailed; as where the deceased had been found
upon an inquest to be a felo de se, the forfeiture was released for
the benefit of his widow and children. And where certain prop-
erty, on the death of the owner intestate, had escheated for want
of heirs, the Lord Proprietary took the estate subject to all claims
against the deceased, and his creditors were paid as from such an
amount of assets. Relief was obtained in such case by petition
* to the Lord Proprietary in Council, where the case was 114
regulary heard, investigated, and disposed of as justice re-
quired. Robert Fuller's Case, 14 May, 1680, Land Records, lib. C.
B. 45; John Webster's Case, 27 November, 1080, Land Records, lib.
C. B. 60, 102; Richard Russell's Case, 1 May, 1681, Land Records,
lib. C. B. 96, 144, 150 and 166.

Hence it appears, that in Maryland as well as in England, where
the property of a debtor was in any way, either because of his
crimes, or of his death intestate without heirs or next of kin con-
fiscated, escheated, or taken into the public treasury, his creditors
were always paid; and that they were not left without remedy for