Not only do estates in possession escheat, but also those in remainder, if vested; Peo ple v. Conklin, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 67; and equi table as well as legal estates ; Cross v. De Valle, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 5, 17 L. Ed. 515; At kins v. Kron, 40 N. 'C. 207 ; 3 Washb. R. P. 446 ; Matthews v. Ward, 10 Gill & J. (Md.) 443 ; 4 Kent 424 ; (in many states this pro vision is statutory, but the rule in England is contrary; 1 Eden 177 ;) also those held in trust, when the trust expires ; In re Linton's Estate, 198 Pa. 438, 48 Atl. 298 ; and an equi ty of redemption ; Seitz v. Messerschmitt, 117 App. Div. 401, 102 N. Y. Supp. 732 ; and lands subject to dower, and the right is not waived by the appearance of the attorney general of the state in an action to admeas ure dower ; Smith v. Doe, 111 N. Y. Supp. 525; also property devised by a void will, and the state is the proper party to contest the will ; State v. Lancaster, 119 Tenn. 638, 105 S. W. 858, L. R. A. (N. S.) 991, 14 Ann. Cas. 953 ; and duly constituted officials may intervene ; Gombault v. Public Adm'r, 4 Bradt. Sur. (N. 'Y.) 226 ; contra, Hopf v. State, 72 Tex. 281, 10 S. W. 589.
Proceedings to traverse an ing.nest. An in quisition is traversable, the traverser being considered as a defendant, and being only re quired to show failure of title in the state and bare possession in himself ; People v. Cutting, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 1; contra, in Penn sylvania, where such traverser is in the posi tion of plaintiff in ejectment and must show a title superior to the commonwealth; pro ceedings may be brought by any one claim ing an interest and including an administra trix in possession ; Com. v. Compton, 137 Pa. 138, 20 Atl. 417 ; In re Alton's Estate, 220 Pa. 258, 69 Atl. 902 ; it is a proceeding at law and not in equity ; In re Fenstermacher v. State, 19 Or. 504, 25 Pac. 142 ; and the court of common pleas has jurisdiction over it ; Com. v. Compton, 137 Pa. 138, 20 Atl. 417; the traverser being allowed to begin and conclude to the jury ; Com. v. Desilver, 2 Ashm. (Pa.) 163. And if only one of those notified appear, he is entitled to a separate trial of his traverse ; In re Malone's Estate, 21 S. C. 435; but such traverser has no pre cedence over others on the dockets of cases ; Lance v. Dobson, Riley (S. C.) 301.
When all the members of a partnership have died intestate and without heirs, the property escheats to the state, but the heirs or kindred of any one of the partners may traverse the inquisition; Com. v. Land Co., 57 Pa. 102.
The law favors the presumption of the existence of heirs, and there must be some thing shown by those claiming by virtue of escheat to rebut that presumption ; Appeal of Ramsey, 2 Watts (Pa.) 228, 27 Am. Dec. 301; State v. Teulon's Estate, 41 Tex. 249 ; but see contra, Brown v. State, 36 Tex. 283 ; Hammond's Lessee v. Inloes, 4 Md. 138; Uni versity of North Carolina v. Harrison, 90 N. C. 385, overruling as to this point University of North Carolina v. Johnston, 2. N. C. 373. Proceedings for an escheat for want of heirs or devisees, like ordinary provisions for the administration of his estate, presuppose that he is dead ; if he is still alive, the court is without jurisdiction and its proceedings are null and void, even in a collateral proceed ing; Hamilton v. Brown, 161 U. S. 256, 267, 16 Sup. Ct. 585, 40 L. Ed. 691, citing Scott v. McNeal, 154 U. S. 34, 14 Sup. Ct. 1108, 38 L. Ed. 896 ; Hall v. Claiborne, 27 Tex. 217.
Equity cannot enjoin proceedings to have an escheat declared, where every question presented could be decided on a traverse should such escheat be found ; Appeal of Olm sted, 86 Pa. 284 ; and an amicus aurice cannot
move to quash an inquisition, unless he has an interest himself or represents some one who has ; Dunlop v. Com., 2 Call. (Va.) 284.
Disposition of escheated lands by the state. Where the state takes the title of escheat ed land, it is entitled to the rights of the last owner ; therefore, such lands cannot be taken up by location as vacant land ; Hughes v. State, 41 Tex. 13 ; or be regarded as ungranted land ; but it must be sold pur suant to the statute ; Bodden v. Speignei, 2 Brev. (S. C.) 321; Straub v. Dimm, 27 Pa. 36; and a grant of such lands by the state before office found is valid ; Rubeck v. Gard ner, 7 Watts (Pa.) 456 ; Colgan v. McKeon, 24 N. J. L. 566 ; McCaughal v. Ryan, 27 Barb. (N. Y.) 376 ; as is also a grant of land to escheat in futuro; Nettles v. Cummings, 9 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 440; but no authority is vested in officers of the land office to issue warrants for the taking up of escheated lands. After seven years from the inquisi tion they shall be sold at auction ; Straub v. Dimm, 27 Pa. 36 ; and the power to order the sale of the property is vested in the district court ; Hughes v. State, 41 Tex. 10. The dis position of funds secured by the sale of such property must be strictly in conformity with the state statute ; and the legislature of a state can pass no act diverting the funds to another purpose ; State v. Reeder, 5 Neb. 203 ; where the constitution gives to the legislature the power to provide methods to enforce the forfeiture, there can be no proceedings until the legislature acts; Wiederanders v. State, 64 Tex. 133.
In addition to the escheat for want of heirs of a decedent, there are in some states provisions for forfeiture to the state of lands held by corporations under certain circum stances; in Kentucky, property of a corpora tion not necessary, to its business and held for more than five years is forfeited for the benefit of schools ; Com. v. Property Co., 128 Ky. 790, 109 S. W. 1183 ; in Pennsylvania it is provided that land held by or for corpora tions, either directly or indirectly, unless specially authorized by statute, shall "es cheat" to the state, but land belonging to a mining company, all of whose stock was held by a railroad company, was held not to be within the mischief of such statute ; Corn. v. Co., 132 Pa. 591, 19 Atl. 291, 7 L. R. A. 634. Corporate property so forfeited is tak en however subject to the payment of debts of the corporation ; War Eagle Consol. Min. Co. v. Dickie, 14 Idaho 534, 94 Pac. 1034. Though in passing or construing such stat utes as these, both legislatures and courts have employed the term "escheat," it would appear to be a departure from its precise meaning as used in the common law.
In some states statutes provided that cer tain unclaimed funds held by corporations shall go to the state; such acts are, constitu tional ; Deaderick v. Washington County Court, 1 Coldw. (Tenn.) 202.
A statute, providing that all moneys re maining in the registry of the United States courts unclaimed for ten years or longer shall be paid over to the government, is unconsti tutional ; the United States cannot be regard ed as a parens patrice, and the right of es cheat belongs only to the states ; American Loan & Trust Co. v. Grand Rivers Co., 159 Fed. 775.
See, generally, American Mortgage Co. of Scotland v. Tennille, 87 Ga. 28, 13 S. E. 158, 12 L. R. A. 529; ALIEN; BASTARD; DIssoLU TION; FOREIGN CORPORATION.