seisin, or other advantages, as the circumstances of the case might turn out. To superintend and regulate these inquiries, the court of wards and liveries was instituted, by statute 32 Hen. 8. c. 46. which was abolished at the restoration of King Charles 2. together with the oppressive tenures upon which it was founded (a). Latterly the inquiries are whether the King's tenant for life died seised, whereby the reversion accrues to the King? whether A. who held immediately of the Crown, died without heirs, in which case the lands belong to the King by escheat (b)? whether B. be attainted of treason (c), whereby his estate is forfeited to the Crown? whether C. who has purchased lands, be an alien, which is another cause of forfeiture? whether D. be an idiot a nativitate, and therefore, togegether with his lands, appertains to the custody of the King? and other questions of like import, concerning both the circumstances of the tenant, and the value or identity of the lands (d).

The principal rule with respect to offices is, that they are not necessary when the King's title already appears in any shape of record (e).

"Therefore if the King's tenant alien without licence, which alienation appeareth by fine, or other matter of record, in this case if there be another record found that proveth the lands to be holden of the King in capite, upon these two records together, process shall be made against the party by scire facias, to come and shew why he should not make a fine for the alienation. Like law, it is where there is a record to prove that he that aliened is but tenant in tail of the King's gift, and he pretending to be tenant in fee simple, doth purchase a licence of alienation, and alieneth; and after dyeth without issue, which death is found by office, but nothing of this estate tail or licence appeareth in the said office, yet upon these records laid together, the King shall have a scire facias against the alienees, to shew why the land should not be seized into his hands, and his Highness answered of the profits since the death of the tenant in tail; for when he was but tenant in tail

(a) 3 Bla. Com. 258.

(b) 12 East, 96.

(c) Post, 249.

(d) 3 Bla. Com. 258.

(e) Staundf. Prerog. 56, a, Staund

ford was frequently referred to and recognised in 12 East, 96, both by the Counsel and the Court. Not that the book is without its inaccuracies.

it appeareth that the licence was purchased upon a false suggestion, and so void, and then the lands ought to revert to the King, because his reversion could not be discontinued (a).

"Like law hath been used where his Highness is to seize lands of priors, aliens within this realm ratione guerre, his Highness doth it without any office, for in both these cases the King's title is notorious enough although it appear not of record. But yet in these cases his Highness must seize ere he can have any interest in his lands, because they be penal towards the party (b).”

So (c) if possession in law or a freehold, be cast upon the King, as it may be on a common person, there as the freehold ought not to be in suspense, the King is entitled and may seize without any office, as in the case of a descent in remainder or reverter; or of an escheat, if, as seems necessary in such a case, the deceased tenant held in capite or the King's title otherwise appear of record (d). Nor is an office necessary where the Crown claims the temporalities of a Bishop during the vacation of the see (e), or an estate under a devise from a subject (f), or the lands of an alien deceased; but "if the alien be living an office is necessary; and if he obtain a charter of denization and die, there, if the alien heir enter, since he was freeman of the charter, an office is necessary to defeat the estate (g)."

And by the statute 33 Hen. 8. c. 20. in case of attainder of high treason, the King shall have the forfeiture instantly, without any inquisition of office (h). In the case of other attainders, it seems to have been considered that an office is necessary to entitle the King, unless in the case of the attainder and death together of the party (i).

With respect to the necessity of having an office, the rule is, that in all cases where a common person cannot have a possession, neither in deed nor in law, without an entry, the King cannot have it without an office, or other record (k). As, if

(a) Stanndf. Prærog. Regis, 56, a.
(b) Ibid. 4 Term R. 734.
(c) Staundf. 54, a.

(d) See per Lord Ellenborough, 12 East, 109, 110. See Ibid. 99, and 103. (e) 4 Co. 58. Savile, 7. 9 Co. 95, b. Staundf. Prærog. Regis, 54, a. Gilb. Hist. Excheq. 108.

(f) Bro. Ab. Prerog. pl. 143.

(g) Gilb. Hist. Excheq. 109. Co. Lit. 2, b.

(h) Staundf. Prærog. Regis, 53, a. 4 T. R. 730, 734. post, 250. (i) Staundf. 53, b.

(k) Staundf. Prærog. Regis, 55. 6 Com. Dig. Prerog. D. 67.

the

the King's tenant alien in mortmain, or without licence (a), or his Majesty claim upon a forfeiture (b), or a condition broken (c), an office is necessary. With respect to forfeitures and the right of the Crown, to enter without office under a proviso of re-entry in a Crown lease, on non-payment of rent, &c. the distinction seems to be, whether or not such forfeiture appear of record. If the rent, in such case, be made payable at the Exchequer, an office seems necessary; because, " if the rent had been paid, the payment would have been entered of record, and not being so, the default appears of record (d);” aliter if the rent be not so payable (e).

So, if the King claim the land of an idiot, lunatic, &c. the person ought to be found an idiot, &c. by office (ƒ).

So, if he claim the year, day, and waste, of a felon attainted, or the temporalities of a bishop (g), or a freehold, or inheritance, as forfeited for a contempt (h).

So if he claim, as forfeited to the Crown, choses in action, which belonged to an alien enemy; and in such case, a peace, before the inquisition taken, discharges the forfeiture (i). And an office seems necessary to entitle the King to a bond forfeited by one of two joint obligees committing suicide (k).

There are some cases in which the King is not considered as entitled till an actual seizure, or scire facias, even after the office found.

As before observed (1), though an office be unnecessary in the case of lands of aliens forfeited, ratione guerre, an actual seizure is requisite. And in the case of an attainder of high treason, Mr. Justice Buller appears to have considered that an actual seizure is proper; though, as between the party attainted and a wrong doer, it would not be necessary that the Crown should actually seize the property of the former, in order to divest him of it (m).

(a) Staundf. Prerog. 55, b.

(b) Sembl. Lev. 1. Cro. Car. 100,

173. Sir W. Jon. 78, 217.

(c) Sav. 70. 2 Rol. 215, 1. 15.

(d) 2 Leon. 134, 139. Poph. 25,

28, 53. 12 East, 113.

(e) Ibid. Cro. Car. 200. (f) Staundf. 55.

(3) Ibid.

(h) Sav. 8.

(i) Parker, 267.

(k) Bro. Ab. Forfeiture, pl. 58.
(1) Ante, 249.

(m) 3 Term R. 730, 734. See Dyer, 145, 6. 12 East, 114. And sce post, 254, and note (d), whether the King could grant in such case, before office found.

"The

"The possession of the King," says Staundford (a), “ is of two sorts, in law and in deed; in law merely by force of law; in deed, by actual taking by an officer, though without office found.

"An office that entitleth the King to possession is sufficient by itself, without any seizure or entry of the escheator, to make a possession in deed in the King, if it be so that the possession were vacant when the office was found. But if the possession were not vacant, but another than he in whose right the King seizeth, was tenant thereof at the time of the finding of the office, then must the King enter or seize by his officer, before the possession in deed shall be judged in him. And if his Highness seize not by the space of a year and a day after the finding of the office, then may he not seize without a scire facias, to be pursued against him that is tenant thereof. But hereupon is there a distinction to be made, whether that the King is entitled unto by office, be it a thing manual, and whereof profit may be taken forthwith, after the finding of the office, or not. For if it be such a thing as is not manual, and whereof there is no profit to be taken forthwith, until such time it falleth, in that case, although the King be in possession of the right of the thing, yet is he not in possession of the profit thereof, until such time as his Highness actually by his officer, when it falleth, taketh and perceiveth the said profit. As for example, the thing the King is entitled to is no land, but advowson, rent, or a common, although that the King by this office be patron of the advowson, or owner of the rent, or common, and thereby when the benefice becometh void may present, or when the rent becometh, may receive the rent, or when the common is to be taken, may use the said common; yet, if the office that entitleth his Highness be false, and he that was in possession at the time of the office taketh the profit, whether it falleth before the King's officer do take it, in this case this taking is no intrusion upon the King's possession, for he was never seized in deed: wherefore, being driven to his action, if his Highness bring his quare impedit, or action of trespass, the defendant may traverse the office with him in the said actions, keeping still his possession, and need not to sue in the Chan

(2) Prærog. Regis, 54, b. ch. 18. And see the doctrine of Staundf. recog

nised in Finch, Law, 325. 9 Co. 95, b. Com. Dig. tit. Prerogative, D. 68, 69. cery

cery for the traversing of the same. Thus you may see a difference between a thing that is manual and a thing that is not manual. And the reason is, that when a stranger is tenant at the time of the office, finding the office maketh no possession in deed in the King before an entry or seizure, and then whether the King's officer taketh not the profits when it falleth, but suffereth him that was in possession to take it, then was the King never seised, but he still remains in possession that was possessed at the time of the finding of the office until such time as seizure be made for the King, which cannot be done at all times, as it may be of land, but only at such times as the profit thereof to be taken; that is to say, when it falleth, and that is now past for this time, seeing it is already taken, and, therefore, the King in that case is driven to his action. But query, whether his Highness may be brought in possession in these cases by a claim, or not?

"Like law is it, where an office is found, which doth not entitle the King to the possession by entry, but only by action, as where it is found that the King's tenant, for term of life or years, or the grantee of a forest, hath done waste (a), or made a feoffment by collusion, contrary to the statute of Marlebridge, or such like. For it is a general rule, that in all cases where a common person cannot enter, but is driven to his action, there the King cannot have the possession but by like action, or else by a scire facias, after office found, in nature of the action; for the office in this case entitleth the King to no other thing but only to the action (b). But query, of a feoffment that is found to be made by collusion, contrary to the statute 34 and 35 Hen. 8. c. 5. for in that case, it seems, his Highness may enter without scire facias, because the said statute appoints no action to be sued in the case. And note, that in all these cases before, where the King is driven to his scire facias, or other action, if the office be false the party may traverse the office, with the King keeping still his possession, whether it be in the Chan

(a) 9 Co. 96, b. Sav. 1. So if the King's title appears by two distinct records, the King shall not be in possession before a scire facias, though a common person in such case might enter without action, except in special cases; as if an office finds that the manor of

D. is held of the King, and it appears by a fine, that the manor of D. is aliened in mortmain, the King ought to have a scire facias before seizure; for it is possible that there are two manors of D. 9 Co. 96, a.

(b) Ante, 247.