Case ID: va_6/html/0318-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "*EYONS, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Dunlop v. The Commonwealth.
    [April Term, 1800.]
    Escheat for Want of Heirs — Inquisition—Requisites— Quaere. — Quere, Whether an inquisition finding- an escheat for want of heirs, should not say in express words that the deceased died without heirs?
    Same — Same—When Amicus Curiae Moves to Quash. —An amicus curiae cannot move to quash an inquisition of escheat unless he either has an interest himself or represents somebody who has.
    Same — Amicus Curite — Right to Appeal. — An ami-cus curiae cannot appeal.
    This was an inquisition of escheat, for the want of heirs, dated 26th July 1796. It finds that Thomas Jackson was in his life time seized of the premises, and that he died in 17 without will, “Or in any otherwise disposing of the said land, and that no person hath ever since claimed the said land either as a lineal or collateral heir to the said Thomas Jackson deceased.”
    In April 1798 Dunlop as amicus curias moved the District Court to quash the inquisition which they refused. The court not having jurisdiction thereof. Whereupon he filed a bill of exceptions which stated the inquisition, and motion to quash it; because the clerk of the court had issued no certificate to the escheator respecting the said inquest; but that the motion was opposed, 1. Because the inquisition had been duly returned into the clerks office and had remained there ever since, without any person having traversed it, or put in or shewn any monstrans de droit, or petition of right within six months next after the time of finding the said inquest. 2. Because the court had no jurisdiction of the cause, unless brought before them by a traverse of office, monstrans de droit, or petition of right. And that the court being divided, the motion was overruled.
    Dunlop appealed from, the judgment of the District Court to this Court.
    Randolph for the appellant.
    The inquisition, having omitted to state that the decedent died without heirs, is clearly bad; and an amicus curiae might suggest it to the court, in order that it might be quashed and a new one taken, so as to prevent *its being set aside at a future day, and purchasers, under the commonwealth, from being injured. The lapse of time made no difference; as no certificate had been granted by the clerk, and therefore it was in the nature of a matter still depending before the court, who had a right to controul the granting of the certificate prior to its emanation. Besides it never could have been the intention of the legislature to bar the claim of men who were not informed of their rights. Else a man, .who happened to be out of the state on the day of taking the inquisition and who did not return until a few days after six months, would be precluded from as-, serting his claim, although he had no opportunity of being informed of it.
    Nicholas Attorney General contra.
    The inquisition finds facts tantamount to dying without heirs; for it states that the lands escheated and no set form of words is necessary. But the six months having elapsed is decisive; for the act express^ precludes all objections afterwards. Nor is it material that no certificate had issued; because that was the omission of the clerk, which ought not to prejudice the commonwealth. However, at any rate, an amicus curiae could not move the exception, as he had no interest in the question himself, nor made a suggestion on behalf of any person who was before the Court and concerned in interest. Much less could he appeal; because he sustained no injury, and therefore could not be. aggrieved by the Courts not hearkening to his advice, or deciding against his opinion.
    Randolph in reply.
    There is nothing tantamount to dying without heirs found (even if that were sufficient, which it is not;) for the inference drawn by the jurjT was not warranted by the facts which they had previously stated. Any person may give an appeal bond; and the court will presume that the amicus curias either had an interest himself or represented somebodj' who had.
    
      
      Amicus Curiae — Right to Appeal. — That an amicus curial Is not entitled to an appeal, the principal case is cited and approved in Board of Supervisors v. Gorrell, 20 Gratt. 522, and note; French v. Com., 5 Leigh 517, 518: Sayre v. Grymes, 1 H. & M. 407.
      And in Williamson v. Hays, 25 W. Va. 616, citing the principal case, it is said, the court ought not to permit any person tobe made a party defendant, so as to give him the right to obtain a writ of error to the Judgment of the court, if such person have no interest in the subject-matter before the court, except such interest as he has in common with all other members of the community. See mono-graphic note on “Appeals.”
    
   *EYONS, Judge.

Delivered the resolution of the Court, that, the appeal should be dismissed; because it had been improperly granted; and that the amicus curias could not move to quash an inquisition, when it did not appear that he had any interest himself, ■ or represented any person who had.

Appeal Dismissed.