CUNNINGHAM v. BROWNING
in England, by a writ of mandamus, or a diem claustit extremum,
directed to the sheriff of the county in which the lands lay; upon
the return of which, as a reward to the discoverer, at whose
instance the mandamus had been issued, he was allowed to have
the pre-emption of the land so escheated at two-thirds of its
value, or that it should be sold, and one-third of the proceeds of
sale paid to him.(l)

But, in that interval of time, between the years 1692 and 1715,
when the government of the province was taken into the hands of
the king, although the proprietary's right of soil was admitted, it
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 citizen; 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 ;(u) and this practice having been
followed up in the same way ever since, under the State government,
the holding of an inquest of office in any such case must now be con-
sidered as having been thus virtually abolished.(v) He who disco-
vers 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 by the surveyor under his oath
of office.(w) 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 remained subject to all claims and rights created and
acquired under the proprietary ;(#) and further, that by the acts of
confiscation, passed during the revolutionary war, all British pro-
perty was seized and vested in the State without office found.(y)

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

(t) Land Ho. Ass. 102, 114, 174, 194, 261, 283, 319; Lord Prorietary v. Jenings,
1 H. & McH. 119; Kilt Rep. 14 Ed. 3, c. 8, & 8 H. 6, c. 16; Land Records, Up. G.
B. 18, &c.; Chan. Pro. lib. C. D. 78; lib. P. L.fol. 90; lib. J. R. fol 242,&c.
(u) Greaves v. Dempsy, 1 H. & McH. 65; Lord Proprietary v, Jenings, 1 H.& McH.
119,138; Thomas v. Wootton, 4 H. & McH. 428.—(v) Land Ho. Ass. 160,162,176;
Owings v. Norwood, 2 H. & J. 96.—(w) Land Ho. Ass. 819,485,488; 1800, ch. 70.
(x) Land Ho. Ass. 300; Ringgold v. Malott, 1 H. & J. 817.—(y) Land Ho. Ass.
301, 332; Ringgold v. Malott,1 H. & J.317; Owings v. Norwood, 2 H & J. 96;
Hall v. Gittings, 2 H. & J. 112.