CUNNINGHAM v. BROWNING.

solemnity and caution was not required in disposing of all other
tilings; for, the king might dispose of a chattel under his privy
seal; or he might make a lease for years of any crown lands
without a patent under the great seal.(o)

But, after any land had been once legally granted by the king,
it could, in no case, be fully and particularly revested in him, so
as again to become the subject of a new patent to an individual,
without office found, or something equivalent to an inquest of
office; for it is said to be a part of the liberty of England, that the
king's officers should not enter upon other men's possessions, till a
jury had found the king's title. Therefore, where the king's title
appeared on record, his officers might enter without any office
found; as where the lands were held of the crown and the tenant
died without heirs, the officers of the king might enter; because
the tenure whereby the king's title appeared was upon record. So
by the common law, where lands belong to nobody, the king's
officers may enter; because by the law, the land is in the crown ;
for the law entitles him where the property is in no man; but if
any body else were in possession, the lands could not be divested
without matter of record. There are two kinds of offices, one an
qffice entitling, that vests the estate and possession of the land in
the king where he had but a right or title before; and another
called an office of instruction, and that is when the estate of the
land is lawfully in the king before, but the particularity of the land
does not appear of record. And therefore, although, where the
king is entitled by matter of record, there is no need of an office
to entitle him; yet there was always an office of instruction found,
in order that the land might be distinctly ascertained and speci-
fied; for until that was done, although the title was in him, he
was prohibited, by statute,(c) from making any grant of them to an
individual. And therefore, in all cases, where it is proposed to
place any lands, which had been held by an individual whose right
had been confiscated or forfeited; or whose estate was escheatable,
because of its being such as he was incompetent to hold; or
whose title had escheated, because of his death intestate with-
out heirs, it was deemed necessary to have the facts found by
an inquest of office taken under a commission, or a writ of
escheat, a diem clausit extremum, a mandamus, a melius inqui-
0, or the like; or by an inquest of office taken by the escheator

(*) Gilb. For. Rom. ll.-(e) 8 H. 6, c. 16, and 18 H. 6, c. 6.