Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-549-Forfeiture-To-state.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 17:42:18+00:00

Document:
5. See 2 Blackst. Comm. 274, 293; 2 Kent's Comm. 61; Read v. Read, 5 Call (Va.) 207.
6. 4 Blackst. Comm. 381-385.
7. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec.Sec. 143, 1162.
9. Sabine, Loyalists of American Revolution, 75 et seq.
10. Jenkins v. Collard, 145 U. S. 546, 36 L. Ed. 812.
11. Lawrence's Wheaton, In-ternat. Law, 596 et seq. Lawrence, Internat. Law, Sec. 178; Taylor, Internat. Law, Sec. 540.
At common law, the proceedings on the part of the state to enforce a forfeiture as well as an escheat was by "office found" or "inquest of office," this being a proceeding, by the aid of a jury, which was made use of in any cases in which the crown asserted a claim to lands or goods.15 There is, in some states, a statutory proceeding for the enforcement of such rights, but an inquest of office as at common law, or, it seems, an action of ejectment, would be sufficient to try the rights of the state to the land in any such case.
12. See Leazure v. Hillegas, 7 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 313; Com. v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 132 Pa. St. 591, 7 L. R. A. 634, 19 Atl. 291, 139 Pa. St. 457, 21 Atl. 528; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Com., 151 Ky. 325, 151 S. W. 934, 151 Ky. 774, 152 S. W. 976.
13. Union Nat. Bank v. Matthews, 98 U. S. 621, 25 L. Ed. 188; National Bank of Commerce v. Licking Valley Land & Mining Co., 15 Ky. L. Rep. 211, 22 S. W. 881; Com. v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 132 Pa. St. 591, 7 L. R. A. 634, 19 Atl. 291, 139 Pa. St. 457, 21 Atl. 528; Fayette Land Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 93 Va. 274, 24 S. E. 1016.
14. Rev. St. U. S. Sec. 3400.
15. 3 Blackst. Comm. 358.
17. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 1332.
18. 2 Tiffany, Landl'd & Ten. Sec.Sec. 192, 193. See ante, Sec. 77.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.