CUNNINGHAM v. BROWNING.

in virtue of his office.(d) But it not unfrequently happens, that
the king's title to lands, which has thus accrued to him by confis-
cation, 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 kingfirst makes known the fact, that
there is such an interest; 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 disco very, (e)
Considering the numerous and various matters of public con-
cern by which the attention of the king is presumed to be unceas-
ingly engaged; in order to prevent mistake, imposition and fraud,
it is provided, that all his grants must pass through certain pre-
liminary grades and forms. The proposed grant is by a warrant
from the crown first put into the form of a bill by the attorney 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 Petty Bag or the enrollment 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.(f)
But if before the great seal has been put to the patent the proposed
grantee dies, the application so totally fails, that the whole pro-
ceeding must be revived, or renewed by the heir or person who
succeeds to the pretensions of the applicant, (g) The object of
all these several forms is, that the proposed 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 informed as to such matters.(h)

(d) Raysing's Case, Dyer, 208; Page's Case, 5 Co. 52; Doe Lessee of Hayne v.
Redfern, 12 East, 96; F. N. B. 566,569; 4 Inst 225; Gilb.Exch. 103, 100; 2 Blac.
Com. 244; S Blac. Com. 25S; Shelf. Lun. & Idiots, 75.-—(e) Moggridge v Thack-
well, 7 Ves. 71.—(/) Vernon e. Benson, 9 Mod. 48; Ex parte Koops, 6 Vet. 800;
Ex parte Beck, 1 Bro. C. C. 578; Attorney General v. Stewart, 2 Meriv. 153;
1 Mad. Chan. 4.—(g) 1 Boz. His. Mary. 258.—(A) Com. Dig. tit. Patent C. 5 & D;
Bac. Abr. tit. Prerogative F.; 2 Inst 555; Gilb. For. Rom. 12; The Case of Alton
Woods, 1 Co. 52.