
    Bennet v. The Commonwealth.
    October Term, 1795.
    Escheat — Inquest—Number of Jurors, — Upon an inquest of office, respecting- property escheated, or forfeited to the Commonwealth, the jury might have been composed of twelve jurors, or of a greater or smaller number, prior to the Act of 1794.
    This was an appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Dumfries, quashing an inquisition taken between the Commonwealth and the appellant, which found “that the appellant was a British subject; tha't he had since the peace of 1783 sold the land in question to citizens of this country, and that the Commonwealth hath no right to the same by way of escheat or otherwise.” This inquisition was signed by 17 jurors.
    The only question in the cause was, whether the jury might be composed of a greater number than twelve?
    Dee for the appellant,
    cited 3 Blac. Com. 258— Finche’sTaw 323, 4, S, to shew that in inquest of this sort, no determinate number was required. That it might consist of twelve, or more, or less.
    
      
      See monographic note on “Escheat” appended to Sands v. Lynham, Escheator, 27 Gratt. 291.
    
   ROANE, J.

The quotations from the 3 Blac. Com. 258 are completely decisive, that no determinate number of jurors is requisite in questions of this kind by the English law, and no act of our Assembly prior to the year 1794, has altered the common law in this particular.

The act of 1794, to amend the act concerning escheators, after premising that a contrariety of opinions had prevailed as to the construction of the act of 1792, goes on to limit the number *of jurors to serve upon an escheator’s inquest. I have looked into that act, and find nothing which can warrant an opinion that any specific number of jurors were required, prior to the commencement of the act of 1794.

I am therefore of opinion, that the District Court erred in quashing the inquisition, and that the judgment ought to be reversed.

FUEIMING-, J.,and the PRE)SIDE5NT,

both concurred in the same opinion, that the number of jurors might be more or less than twelve, until the act of 1794, and therefore that the judgment was erroneous._  