This section is from the book "The Law Of Real Property and Other Interests In Land", by Herbert Thorn Dike Tiffany. Also available from Amazon: A Treatise on the Modern Law of Real Property and Other Interests in Land .
29. Adams v. Chaplin, 1 Hill. Eq. 265; Pearse v. Killian, McMull Eq. 231.
30. Co. Litt. 13b; 1 Rolle's Abr. 816a; 1 Blackst Comm. 484, 2 Kent's Comm. 307.
31. See Folger v. Chase, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 63; Bingham v. Weidenwax, 1 N. Y. 509; White v. Gampbell, 5 Humph. (Tenn.) 38; and the numerous citations in Gray, Perpetuitites, Sec. 51, note.
32. Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U. S. 3-4, 34 L. Ed. 478; Mott v. Danville Seminary, 129 111. 403, 21 N. E. 927.
33. In Gray, Perpetuities, Sec.Sec. 44-51, where there is cited a case, Johnson v. Norway, Winch. 37, which is. in Hargrave's note to Co. Litt. 13b. on the authority of Lord Hale's M. S., said to have been decided contrary to Coke's dictum. The question is exhaustively discussed in an editorial note in 10 Mich. Law Rev. at p. 121. See also, 8 Columbia Law Rev. at p. 222.
In People v. Trustees, 36 Cal. 166, McRoberts v. Mondy, 19 Mo. App. 26; Gibson v. Armstrong, 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) 489 such a doctrine was held not to apply to land purchased by the corporation for value. The doctrine was repudiated in Wilson v. Leary, 120 N. C. 90, 30 L. R. A. 240, 58 Am. St. Rep. 778, 26 S. E. 630.
34. 2 Clark & Marshall, Private Corp. Sec. 328b; 2 Morawetz, possession of the land.35 This right of escheat was, before the statute Quia Emptores36 when the donor was usually the lord, so similar in its effect to the donor's right to have the possession of the land revert upon the expiration either of an estate for life, of a common law conditional fee, or of a determinable, fee, that the terms seem to have been frequently used indiscriminately.37 After the passage of that statute, the terms became differentiated, and "escheat" came to be confined to estates in fee simple. This right of escheat is, in England, a right of reverter, though the lord, it has been said, is not to be regarded as having a "possibility of reverter."38 In this country, a right of escheat exists in favor of the state, but this is usually not based on the feudal theory that the state is the lord paramount and original grantor, and hence the subject cannot well be considered in this place, but will be discussed in a subsequent chapter, as one of the modes of transfer of land.39