II. The method of redressing such injuries as the Crown may receive from the subject (u), are— 1. [By such usual common law actions, as are consistent with the royal prerogative and dignity. As the sovereign, by reason of his legal ubiquity (x), cannot be disseised or dispossessed of any real property which is once vested in him, he can maintain no action which supposes the dispossession of the plaintiff, such as an ejectment (y): but the Sovereign may bring a quare impedit (z), which always supposes the complainant to be seized or possessed of the advowson.] So too [the sovereign may bring an action of trespass for taking away his goods, for breaking his close, or other injury done to his soil or possession (a): but such actions (though in strictness maintainable)] are not usually brought at the suit of the Crown. [It would be equally tedious and difficult to run through every minute distinction, that might be gleaned from our books with regard to this matter (b); nor is it in any degree necessary, as much easier and more effectual remedies are usually obtained by such prerogative modes of process as are peculiarly confined to the Crown, 2. [Amongst these prerogative methods, is that of inquisition (or inquest,) of office (c): which is an inquiry made by the sovereign's officer, his sheriff, coroner, or escheator, either virtute officii, or by writ to them sent for that purpose, or by commissioners specially appointed, concerning any (u) Under this head Blackstone (vol. iii. pp. 262, et seq.) comprises the subjects of quo warranto and mandamus. But these are practically in the nature of remedies at the suit of a private litigant; and in the arrangement of the present work it has been deemed expedient so to class them. Vide sup. pp. 5, 14. (x) Vide sup. vol. 11. p. 528. (y) Bro. Ab. tit. Prerog. 89. As to an ejectment, vide sup. vol. 111. pp. 476, 509, 710, et seq. (*) As to quare impedit, vide sup. vol. 111. pp. 476, 514, 701, et seq. (a) Bro. Abr. tit. Prerog. 130; F. N. B. 90; Y. B. 4 Hen. 4, pl. 4. (b) Some of these, are discussed in the case of Attorney-General v. Lord Churchill, 8 Mee. & W. 172. (c) As to the form of, and proceedings in, an inquisition of office, see 12 & 13 Vict. c. 109, s. 30, et seq. See also Dean v. Reginam, 15 Mee. & W. 475. [matter that entitles the Crown to the possession of lands or tenements, goods or chattels (d); and this is done by a jury of no determinate number-being either twelve, or less, or more. As to inquire whether the Crown's tenant for life died seised, whereby the reversion accrues to the sovereign-whether A., who held immediately of the Crown, died without heir; in which case the land must belong to the sovereign by escheat-whether B. be attainted of treason, 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, together with his lands, appertains to the custody of the sovereign; and other questions of like import, concerning both the circumstances of the tenant, and the value or identity of the lands. These inquests of office were more frequently in practice during the continuance of the military tenures amongst us than at present;] for then, upon the death of any tenant of the Crown, such inquest was held, [called an inquisitio post mortem, to inquire of what lands he died seised, who was his heir, and of what age, in order to entitle the king to his marriage, wardship, relief, primer seisin, or other advantage, as the circumstances of the case might turn out (e). To superintend and regulate these inquiries, the court of wards and liveries was instituted by statute 32 Hen. VIII. c. 46; which was abolished at the restoration of King Charles the second, together with the oppressive tenures upon which it was founded. With regard to other matters, the inquests of office still remain in force, and are taken upon proper occasions; being extended not only to lands, but also to goods and chattels personal,-as in the case of wreck, treasure trove and the like; and especially as to forfeitures for offences.] For every jury which tries a man for treason or felony,-and every coroner's inquest that sits upon a dead body,-is not only with regard to lands, (d) Finch, L. 323, 425. (e) Vide sup. vol. 1. p. 193 et seq. but also as to goods and chattels, [in all respects an inquest of office;] and if they find treason or felony to have been committed by the party tried, or by any one in respect of the body lying dead, [the sovereign is thereupon, by virtue of this office found, entitled to have his forfeitures (g). These inquests of office were devised by law, as an authentic means to give the sovereign his right by solemn matter of record.] For [it is a part of the liberties of England, and greatly for the safety of the subject, that the sovereign may not enter upon or seize any man's possessions, upon bare surmises, without the intervention of a jury (h).] And it is [by the statute 18 Hen. VI. c. 6, enacted, that all letters patent, or grants of lands and tenements, before office found or returned into the Exchequer, shall be void. And by the Bill of Rights at the Revolution, (1 W. & M. st. 2, c. 2,) it is declared, that all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction, (which is here the inquest of office,) are illegal and void; which indeed was the law of the land, in the reign of Edward the third (¿).] [There are many cases, however, both as regards lands and chattels, in which the Crown is entitled without office found (k):] though it has been frequent even in such cases to have an inquest, for the better instruction of the officer before seizure and to protect the subject from the adoption of hasty measures (1). As to chattels indeed, the general rule seems to be, that the Crown is entitled without office or other matter of record (m); and it is [particularly enacted by the statute 33 Hen. VIII. c. 20, that, in case of attainder for treason, the king shall have the forfeiture instantly without any inquisition of office.] And though the rule formerly (g) If the death has been occasioned by a felo de se, the forfeiture to the Crown accrues; as to which, and the inquest in such case, see 1 Saund. 275, 362. (1) Sheffeild v. Ratcliffe, Hob. 347; Gilb. Hist. Ex. 132. (i) 2 Inst. 48. (k) 4 Rep. 58 a. (1) Chit. Prerog. 247, cites Gilb. Exch. 109, 13, 4; 16 Vin. Ab. 79, Office, B.; 12 East, 102. (m) Chit. Prerog. ubi sup. was (n), that where a common person cannot have possession without entry, the sovereign cannot have it without an office, yet now it is otherwise; for by 22 & 23 Vict. c. 21, s. 25, it is enacted that when any right of re-entry upon lands or other hereditaments shall have accrued to the Crown, such right may be exercised or enforced without any inquisition taken or office found, or any actual reentry being made on the premises. As to the effect of these inquests when taken, it may be laid down as generally true with regard to real property, that if an office be found for the sovereign, and the land be not held at the time by a stranger, it puts the Crown into immediate possession, without the trouble of a formal entry; and the Crown shall receive all the mesne or intermediate profits from the time that its title accrued (o). [As on the other hand by the Articuli super chartas (p), if the king's escheator or sheriff seize lands into the king's hand, without cause, upon taking them out of the king's hand again, the party shall have the mesne profits restored to him.] In order to avoid the possession of the Crown acquired by the finding of such office, the subject may have his petition of right, or monstrans de droit, or he may traverse the inquisition, according to the distinctions which we have already had occasion to explain (q). 3. Upon all debts of record due to the Crown, the sovereign has his peculiar remedy by writ of extent (r); which differs in this respect from an ordinary writ of execution at (n) See Chit. Prerog. 249 (0) 3 Bl. Com. 260, cites Finch, L. 325, 326. (p) 28 Edw. 1, st. 3, c. 19. (q) Vide sup. pp. 69, 70. (r) With respect to debts not of record, viz. simple contract debts, and bonds, and other specialties, (not falling within the stat. of 33 Hen. 8, to be presently mentioned in the text,)-no extent can be granted on these, till a commission has first issued, under which an inquisition is taken to find the debt; and when such debt is returned on the inquisition, it becomes a debt on record, on which an extent may issue. (Chit. Prerog. 267.) As to the proceedings on such inquisition, see R. v. Ryle, 9 Mee. & W. 227. suit of the subject, that under it the body, lands and goods of the debtor may be all taken at once, in order to compel the payment of the debt (r). And this proceeding is called an extent, from the words of the writ; which directs the sheriff to cause the lands, goods and chattels to be appraised at their full, or extended, value (extendi facias), before they are delivered to satisfy the debt. A debt of record as regards the Crown, is subject in general to the same definition, as in the case where the party to whom it is due is a subject (s). But there are several instances in which a debt is so ranked in favour of the Crown, by way of exception from the general rule, and by force of its special prerogative. For, first, it having been provided in the case of debts acknowledged on statute merchant or statute staple, that, upon forfeiture of these, the body, lands and goods might be taken at once in execution (t),—it was by 33 Hen. VIII. c. 39, afterwards enacted, among other provisions, that [all obligations made to the king shall have the same force, and of consequence the same remedy, to recover them as a statute staple (u).] Moreover, by statute 13 Eliz. c. 4, the lands of all such treasurers, and other officers as therein mentioned, shall be liable to the Crown debts due on their accounts, in the same manner as if on the day they first became officers or accountants, respectively, they had stood bound by writing obligatory having the effect of statute staple (x). And by 43 Geo. III. c. 99, (r) See 3 Rep. 12 b; Gilb. Ex. 7; 3 Bl. Com. 420; 2 Saund. by Wms. 70. It does not, however, appear to be usual in practice, to seize the body of the debtor. See Chit. Prerog. 282; Rex v. Plaw, 3 Price, 94. As to the writ of extent, see also Williams on Real Property, p. 76, 5th ed. (s) Vide sup. vol. 1. p. 142. (u) 3 Bl. Com. 420; R. v. Lamb, 3 Price, 649. Whether the general right of the Crown to have execution by extent upon all debts of record, rests upon the provisions of this statute, or on the common law, has been questioned. See Bl. Com. (ubi sup.); 3 Rep. 12; Gilb. Ex. 7. (x) R. v. Rawlings, 12 Price, 834; R. v. Fernandez, ibid. 862. |