law, and not by his own act or agreement) than under the preſent, by purchaſe. But it muſt be remembered that in order to complete this title by eſcheat, it is neceſſary that the lord perform an act of his own, by entering on the lands and tenements ſo eſcheated, or ſuing out a writ of eſcheat[1]: on failure of which, or by doing any act that amounts to an implied waiver of his right, as by accepting homage or rent of a ſtranger who uſurps the poſſeſſion, his title by eſcheat is barred[2]. It is therefore in ſome reſpect a title acquired by his own act, as well as by act of law. Indeed this may alſo be ſaid of deſcents themſelves, in which an entry or other ſeiſin is required, in order to make a complete title; and therefore this diſtribution by our legal writers ſeems in this reſpect rather inaccurate: for, as eſcheats muſt follow the nature of the ſigniory to which they belong, they may veſt by either purchaſe or deſcent, according as the ſigniory is veſted. And, though ſir Edward Coke conſiders the lord by eſcheat as in ſome reſpects the aſſignee of the laſt tenant[3], and therefore taking by purchaſe; yet, on the other hand, the lord is more frequently conſidered as being ultimus haeres, and therefore taking by deſcent in a kind of caducary ſucceſſion.
The law of eſcheats is founded upon this ſingle principle, that the blood of the perſon laſt ſeiſed in fee-ſimple is, by ſome means or other, utterly extinct and gone: and, ſince none can inherit his eſtate but ſuch as are of his blood and conſanguinity, it follows as a regular conſequence, that when ſuch blood is extinct, the inheritance itſelf muſt fail; the land muſt become what the feodal writers denominate feudum apertum; and muſt reſult back again to the lord of the fee, by whom, or by thoſe whoſe eſtate he hath, it was given.
Escheats are frequently divided into thoſe propter defectum ſanguinis and thoſe propter delictum tenentis: the one ſort, if the tenant dies without heirs; the other, if his blood be attainted[4].
