1942 ARTICLE 54.

depositions relating to the possession and occupancy of the lands resurveyed
and proof of the notice by publication or otherwise given to the owners or
occupiers of the adjacent lands, and upon return of such certificate and
proofs, if no caveat or objection be made within six months after such
return, the commissioner of the land office shall issue a patent thereon to
the person or his heirs, or assigns who obtained such warrant of resurvey.

Certificate accompanied by depositions taken as required by this section; patent
issued—see notes to sec. 48. Tyler v. Cedar Island Club, 143 Md. 216.

Deputy surveyor has no authority to survey lands lying in' another county. Caveat
will be sustained on that ground, but if patent has been granted without fraud a
good title passes. Hammond v. Ridgely, 5 H. & J. 245.

A warrant must be legally pursued within the time prescribed. Proprietary v.
Dorrel, 1 H. & McH. 2.

As to plats returned by the surveyor being evidence, see Chisholm v. Perry, 4 Md.
Ch. 32.

See notes to secs. 29, 39 and 40.

An. Code, sec. 33. 1904, sec. 33. 1888, sec. 31. 1781, ch. 20, sec. 8.

32. Any person may obtain an escheat warrant by application to the
commissioner of the land office, unless some other person has obtained or
is entitled to a warrant affecting the land.

If another person has already obtained or is entitled to a warrant, no title passes
to party subsequently applying unless first party fails to comply with rules of land
office. When such a warrant is issued, it amounts to notice that no other warrant
will be issued within one year. The legislature may direct commissioner to issue
a patent, but cannot annul a patent already issued. Smith v. Devecmon, 30 Md.
481; Steyer v. Hoye, 12 G. & J. 202. See also Chapman v. Hoskins, 2 Md. Ch. 486;
Hoye v. Johnston, 2 Gill, 316; Hammond v. Norris, 2 H. & J. 130; Hath v. Polk, 1
H. & McH. 363; Beall v. Beall, 1 H. & J. 348; Jones v. Badley, 4 Md. Ch. 167.

The patent, when granted, relates back to date of warrant. Smith v. Devecmon,
30 Md. 481; Owings v. Norwood, 2 H. & J. 96; Chesapeake Canal Co. v. B. & O.
R. R. Co., 4 G. & J. 6; Garretson v. Cole, 2 H. & McH. 459; Hammond v. Warfield,
2 H. & J. 151; Steyer v. Hoye, 12 G. & J. 202; Howard v. Moale, 2 H. & J. 249;
Howard v. Cromwell, 1 H. & J. 118; Howard v. Cromwell, 4 H. & McH. 329; Jones
v. Badley, 4 Md. Ch. 167. Cf. Attorney General v. Snowden, 1 H. & J. 332; Kelly v.<
Greenfield, 2 H. & McH. 121.

Lands held in trust, are liable to escheat. Matthews v. Ward, 10 G. & J. 443.

Land liable to confiscation, may be granted under an escheat warrant. Owings v.
Norwood, 2 H. & J. 96.

While escheat lands cannot ordinarily be taken under a common warrant, if an
honest mistake has been made, the grant will be made. Jones v. Badley, 4 Md. Ch.
167. Cf. Smith v. Baker, 4 Md. Ch. 30; Partridge v. Colegate, 3 H. & McH. 339.

Where there is an escheat, a subsequent grant by the proprietary without inquisi-
tion, etc., is valid. Greaves v. Dempsy, 1 H. & McH. 65.

Nature of escheat warrant; what passes to grantee. Casey v. Inloes, 1 Gill, 433;
Howard v. Moale, 2 H. & J. 249; Hall v. Gittings, 2 H. & J. 112.

Requisites of an escheat warrant and an application therefor. Armstrong v.
Bittinger, 47 Md. 109.

How escheat lands should be taken up, and practice of the land office. Proprietary
v. Jenings, 1 H. & McH. 92.

How an escheat is proved. Peterkin v. Inloes, 4 Md. 187. Goodwin v. Caton, 4
Md. Ch. 161.

For a definition of " escheat," see Hall v. Gittings, 2 H. & J. 112. See also Casey v.
Inloes, 1 Gill, 433; Matthews v. Ward, 10 G. & J. 443.

See notes to secs. 26 and 40.

An. Code, sec. 34. 1904, sec. 34. 1888, sec. 32. 1849, ch. 424, sec. 2. 1894, ch. 191.

33. Every warrant issued out of the land office shall be executed within
six months from the date thereof, and no escheat warrant shall be renewed
after six months from its date.
See notes to sec. 32.