Case Name: W. E. Catham v. The State
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1859-04
Citations: 2 Head 553
Docket Number: 
Parties: W. E. Catham v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 553–555

Head Matter:
W. E. Catham v. The State.
ÍIscheAtS. What necessary to establish an escheat. To entitle the State' to recover lands alleged to have escheated, it must appear that the owners wer & foreigners, that they died without issue, and left no relations within the United States entitled, hy law, to succeed to said land. If there is an oiirission to prove these facts, a verdict in favor of the State will be set aside, and a new trial granted.
EROM DERRY.
This Cause was tried at the Jun'e Term,' 1858, before Judge Walker. Yerdict and judgment for the' State'. The defendant appealed.
Doherty and Hubbard, for the plaintiff in error.
Sneed, Attorney General,- and Maxwell, for the State.

Opinion:
McKinney, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This was an action of ejectment to recover a tract of land in Perry county, supposed to have escheated, 'by reason of the want of heirs, on the part of the person last seized, capable of inheriting. Verdict and judgment were for the plaintiff, and the defendant brought the case to this court.
The evidence, as presented in the record before us, fails to make out a case entitling the plaintiff to a recovery. It appears that the land was conveyed to D'Entraigne and wife, jointly, on the 13th of October, 1852. The proof shows that D'Entraigne, the husband, died in 1853, and his wife in 1854; " and that they were foreignerswhether or not they left issue, is not stated in the bill of exceptions. Neither is it shown, whether or not they left any relations within the United States entitled, by law, to succeed to said land under the provisions of the act of 1848, ch. 165, sec. 4; or, 1852, ch. 128, sec. 2.
For this omission in the proof, the verdict cannot be maintained. On the return of the case to the Circuit Court, the first count of the declaration will be struck out. It is repugnant and absurd, to lay a demise in the names of persons as heirs of the person last seized, when the action is brought upon the assumption that the land escheated for want of such heirs.
From the fact proved, that the parties were " foreigners," the legal presumption in the absence of all evidence would perhaps be, that they were unnaturalized. But from the mere fact that D'Entraigne and wife were unnaturalized foreigners, it cannot be presumed that they died without issue, or without any relative entitled, by the provisions of the before recited acts, to succeed to said land.
Eor this failure in the 'proof, the judgment must be reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.