§ 3. Remedy for. Effect of, on right to appeal, see As ground for dismissal of appeal, see Of person arrested, measure to prevent, see Of animal during transportation, see APPEAL AND Error, § 81. . BONDS, § 70 o. CARRIERS, § 644 a. Validity of statute providing punishment for, see ... CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, §§ 440 c, Attempt to escape of one not formally committed, see One accepting aid to escape as accomplice of one furnishing it, see Of electricity into ground, as giving rise to right of action on part of telephone company the working of whose system is affected thereby, see Evidence that one on trial for crime refused to escape, see f, 680 c; CRIMINAL LAW, § 59 g. CRIMINAL LAW, § 169 a. CRIMINAL LAW, § 1620 k. ELECTRICITY, § 9. EVIDENCE, § 1304. § 1. Generally. a. Where a prisoner has already escaped, no means can be used to re-capture him which would not have been justifiable in making the first arrest. Brown v. Weaver, 42 L.R.A. 423, 76 Miss. 7, 23 So. 388. § 2. What constitutes. a. Flight from prison by one unlawfully imprisoned does not constitute the offense of escape. People v. Ah Teung, 15 L.R.A. 190, 92 Cal. 421, 28 Pac. 577; State v. Pishner, 52 L.R.Á. (N.S.) 369, 73 W. Va. 744, 81 S. E. 1046. b. Assisting one confined in jail without color of lawful authority, to free himself, without violence, is not unlawful. People v. Ah Teung, 15 L.R.A. 190, 92 Cal. 421, 28 Pac. 577. (Annotated) c. A prisoner who escapes from jail by force and violence pending the determination of a writ of error to a judgment of conviction for a felony, resulting in a reversal thereof and a discharge of the prisoner, does not violate a statute providing for the punishment of a person confined in jail on "conviction" of a criminal offense who escapes thence by force or violence. State v. Pishner, 52 L.R.A. (N.S.) 369, 73 W. Va. 744, 81 S. E. 1046. (Annotated) d. When the statute as to jail liberties provides that no person committed to jail shall enjoy the liberties for more than a specified time, unless he executes a general EVIDENCE, §§ 1308 f, g, 1354 a, 1653 j. EVIDENCE, § 1354 a. EVIDENCE, § 1383 a. . EVIDENCE, § 1653 j. EXECUTION, § 16 b, c. HOMICIDE, § 40. NEGLIGENCE, §§ 27-29. . REWARD, § 4 c. assignment, the neglect of a person who has been granted the liberties on giving bond, either to render himself to the keeper or to make an assignment within such specified time, is an escape. Re McManaman, 1 L.R.A. 561, 16 R. I. 358, 16 Atl. 148. e. A statute providing for the punishment of one who, being confined in the penitentiary, "breaks such prison and escapes therefrom," does not apply to an escape from a state quarry 2 miles from the prison, to which the prisoner has been taken to work. State v. King, 54 L.R.A. 853, 114 Iowa, 413, 87 N. W. 282. f. Breaking a prison is not effected by a prisoner's concealing himself in a crevice in a stone quarry to which he has been taken to work until the guards withdraw and then walking forth without impediment, although to aid the concealment a cover is placed over the crevice, which is removed when the escape is effected. State v. King, 54, L.R.A. 853, 114 Iowa, 413, 87 N. W. 282. § 3. Remedy for. a. The remedy for an escape from jail liberties, by suit upon the bond required by statute (R. I. Pub. Stat. chap. 225) as a condition of obtaining the privilege of the liberties, is cumulative, and does not take away the common law right of recommittal on a new execution. Re McManaman, 1 L.R.A. 561, 16 R. I. 358, 16 Atl. 148. ESCAPED PROPERTY. See LOST PROPERTY, § 1 a. ESCHEAT. § 1. Generally. § 2. Of personalty. 3. Of land held ultra vires by corporation. § 4. Right of state to counsel fees, on recovery back of property escheated. Of land held by aliens, see Stay of escheat proceedings to await contest of will in county court, see Jurisdiction of chancery court in which escheat proceedings for property claimed under will have been instituted to determine question of fraud in procuring will, see Of estate of absentee, see Prevention of, by gift of check, see § 1. Generally. a. By the common law, whenever the blood of the person last seized became extinct, the land escheated, or reverted to the original grantor, or lord of the fee, from whom it proceeded. And, in this country, when the title to land fails from defect of heirs, "the state steps in the place of the feudal lord, by virtue of its sovereignty, as the original and ultimate proprietor of all the lands within its jurisdiction." State v. Lancaster, 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 991, 119 Tenn. 638, 105 S. W. 858. b. A judgment in some form declaring an escheat must be obtained before the state can get property subject to forfeiture, although a statute declares that the commonwealth may enter upon and take possession of the land. Louisville School Bd. v. King, 15 L.R.A. 379, 127 Ky. 824, 107 S. W. 247. (Annotated) c. The penalty of escheat is removed although the act imposing it is not repealed in terms, when, before any inquisition is taken, a statute has declared that the land should be held "indefeasibly as to any right of escheat" in the commonwealth. Com. ex. rel. Atty. Gen. v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. 7 L.R.A. 634, 132 Pa. 591, 19 Atl. 291. d. The probate in common form of a will obtained from a person non compos mentis does not bar the state of its right to institute proceedings for the escheat of the property, under a statute providing therefor in case of persons dying intestate without issue or relatives. State v. Lancaster, 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 991, 119 Tenn. 638. 105 S. W. 858. e. A bill to declare an escheat of property which has been sold in course of ad ministration properly lies against the administrator in whose hands the proceeds are found and the claimants under the will. rather than against the persons to whom the propery was sold. State v. Lancaster, 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 991, 119 Tenn. 638, 105 S. W. 858. f. Failure of the state to take proceedings during the lifetime of an alien who, under the Constitution, was incompetent to hold title to property, for an escheat, defeats the right in favor of alien heirs, where, under the Constitution, such heirs may take title by inheritance. Abrams v. State, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 186, 45 Wash. 327, 88 Pac. 327. (Annotated) § 2. Of personalty. a. The incapacity of a man's administrator to receive the proceeds of a policy on his life which had been assigned to his wife, because he wilfully took her life, does not cause their escheat to the state, but they will pass to her distributees, as though the husband had never been in existence. Lanier v. Box, 64 L.R.A. 458, 112 Tenn. 393, 79 S. W. 1042. § 3. Of land held ultra vires by corporation. a. One who, in good faith and for a valuable consideration, buys corporation land before an action has been brought to establish an escheat to which it is subject, because the corporation has held it when it was unnecessary to its purposes, contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, acquires an indefeasible title to it, although the state is authorized by statute to take possession or sue for its recovery, without office found. Louisville School Bd. v. King, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 379, 127 Ky. 824, 107 S. W. 247. b. Constitutional and statutory provi sions forbidding common carriers from engaging directly or indirectly in any other business than that of a common carrier, and forbidding corporations from engaging in any business not expressly authorized by their charters, do not prevent a railroad company from owning a hotel at a junction point, which is run by a lessee for the necessary accommodation of its passengers and employees, so as to render the land on which it is located subject to escheat. Louisville Property Co. v. Com. 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 830, 146 Ky. 827, 143 S. W. 412. (Annotated) c. Land held by a railroad company for the accommodation of additional trackage, which will sooner or later be required by the increasing business of the company, is not subject to escheat, as not being used for purposes of its business. Louisville Property Co. v. Com. 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 830, 146 Ky. 827, 143 S. W. 412. d. The use by a railroad company of a small parcel of land adjacent to its depot for a park, which adds materially to the comfort and convenience of passengers and employees, does not render it subject to escheat as not being used for the purpose of its business. Louisville Property Co. v. Com. 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 830, 146 Ky. 827, 143 S. W. 412. e. A tract of land purchased by a railroad company at a point where two branches of its road cross, and which may reasonably be needed for additional terminal facilities, is not subject to escheat under a constitutional provision for the escheat of property owned by a corporation, and not used in its business for a period of five years, because, by reason of press of other business or lack of means, it does not, within such period, make the necessary improvements upon it to fit it for its use. Property Co. v. Com. 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 830, 146 Ky. 827, 143 S. W. 412. Louisville School Bd. 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 54, 143 Ky. 816, 137 S. W. 518. 4. Right of state to counsel fees, on recovery back of property escheated. a. The expense, including reasonable counsel fees, of the successful defense by the state of action for the proceeds of property which had been escheated in proceedings that were regular and in accordance with the statute, may be deducted from the recovery of such proceeds by subsequent claimants under Hill's (Or.) Ann. Laws, § 3141. Young v. State, 47 L.R.A. 548, 36 Or. 417, 59 Pac. 812, 60 Pac. 711. b. Failure to set up previous payment or the value of services of special counsel in successfully defending prior actions against the state for the recovery of the proceeds of escheated property will not prevent the deduction thereof from the recovery against the state in a subsequent action therefor, under Hill's (Or.) Ann. Laws, § 3141, which provides that such recovery shall be "without interest or costs to the state." Young v. State, 47 L.R.A. 548, 36 Or. 417, 59 Pac. f. A state may provide for the escheat of land taken by a national bank to secure a debt, after it has been held for the five years' period allowed by the Federal banking law, although no opportunity has been found to dispose of it at a fair price. First Nat. Bank v. Com. use of Louisville | 812, 60 Pac. 711. ESCROW. § 2. What constitutes. 3. When title passes. 4. Effect of making grantee or payee depositary. § 5. Duties, powers, and liabilities of depositary. 6. Necessity and sufficiency of compliance with conditions. Preference by delivery to creditor within four ..... Effect of depositing deed in escrow to take contract out of the Statute of Frauds, see Sufficiency of delivery of deed to third person, generally, see Nature of estate conveyed by warranty deed to be held in escrow until death of grantor, see Effect of unexercised right of revocation of deed delivered in escrow, see Election of remedy in case of violation of condi .. BANKRUPTCY, § 63 a. ... ... CONTRACTS, § 161 a, b. CONTRACTS, § 183 j. DEEDS, I. b, 2. DEEDS, § 98 b. DEEDS, 109 a. ELECTION OF REMEDIES, § 24. . EVIDENCE, § 826. INSURANCE, § 294 b. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, § 74 d. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, § 66 g. Right to impose inheritance tax on conveyance by deed in escrow under statute passed after delivery of deed to custodian, see Loss of property by fire while deed is still in escrow, see See also WORDS AND PHRASES, 1228. § 1. Generally. TAXES, § 272 g. VENDOR AND PURCHASER, § 20 d. between themselves with reference to its delivery, does not import to it the legal qualities of an escrow. Carter v. Moulton, 20 L.R.A. 309, 51 Kan. 9, 32 Pac. 633. 3. When title passes. Where grantee is made depositary, see post, § 4. a. An enforceable escrow must rest upon an enforceable contract for the exchange of real property cannot rest in parol but depends wholly for its validity upon an agree§ ment in writing or some sufficient memorandum which will avoid the statute of frauds. McLain v. Healy, L.R.A.1918A, 1161, 98 Wash. 489, 168 Pac. 1. b. The doctrine in regard to the delivery of deeds in escrow is generally held applicable to promissory notes. Daggert v. Simonds, 46 L.R.A. 332, 173 Mass. 340, 53 N. E. 907. b. The deposit in bank of a properly executed deed, and money, notes, and warrants sufficient to pay the purchase price, the deed to be delivered when the warrants are properly indorsed, constitutes a legal escrow agreement; and delivery of the deed can be compelled upon proper indorsement of the warrants within a reasonable time. Manning v. Foster, 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 337, 49 Wash. 541, 96 Pac. 233. c. Delivery of a deed in escrow sufficient to pass title is made where the grantor turns the deed over to his housekeeper, with instructions to deliver it to the grantee on his death, with no apparent intention of retaining control thereof and no. subsequent attempt to control or take possession of it, although it is placed by her for safekeeping, together with other papers of hers, in the grantor's trunk, which is locked, and the key to which he retains until his death. Munro v. Bowles, 54 L.R.A. 865, 187 Ill. 346, 58 N. E. 331. (Annotated) d. The mere deposit in a bank of a deed executed in accordance with a parol con: tract to convey real estate, with directions to return it to the maker upon nonperformance of certain specified conditions, does not constitute an enforceable escrow agreement. King v. Upper, 31 L.R.A. (N.S.) 606, 57 Wash. 130, 106 Pac. 612, 1135. e. Delivery of a promissory note into the hands of one of several joint makers by the others, on any agreement or understanding a. Equity treats things agreed to be done tate is sold under a valid contract, and the as actually performed, and where real esdeed executed and placed in escrow to be delivered at a future date on payment of the purchase money, evidenced by a promissory note due on said day, the equitable title passes at once to the vendee. Fouts v. Foudray, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 251, 31 Okla. 221, 120 Pac. 960. the performance of conditions precedent to b. While a deed is in escrow awaiting the delivery thereof by the vendor to the Vendee, there is no change in the title or right of possession to the property, although the purchaser occupies it with the completing the contract of sale and purconsent of the vendor, in anticipation of chase. Pomeroy v. Ætna Ins. Co. 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 142, 86 Kan. 214, 120 Pac. 344. (Annotated) a. A deed cannot be delivered directly to the grantee himself or to his agent or attorney, to be held as an escrow. Hubbard, v. Greeley, 17 L.R.A. 511, 84 Me. 340, 24 Atl. 799. b. The delivery of a deed to its grantee cannot be in escrow, but is, regardless of such purpose, a good delivery of the deed. Lake v. Weaver, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 495, 76 N. J. Eq. 280, 74 Atl. 451. c. A deed cannot be delivered in escrow to the grantee. Darling v. Butler, 10 L.R.A. 469, 45 Fed. 332. (Annotated) d. A deed absolute on its face cannot be delivered to the grantee therein named, to be by him held in escrow; and a delivery which purports to be such will operate as absolute and freed from all parol conditions, and title will vest at once. Whitney v. Dewey, 69 L.R.A. 572, 10 Idaho, 633, 80 Pac. 1117. |