Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 8.djvu/34

18 1 8 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. their revenues. It was to remedy all this that alienations in mort- main were prohibited. In this country, corporate realty is subject to the same public burdens as that held by individuals ; it may be conveyed voluntarily by the corporation, or taken by force of law for its debts or for public purposes ; corporate powers are clearly defined; the period of corporate existence is usually limited; and in all cases, at the present day, the right to repeal, alter, or amend a charter is reserved. In addition to this, we have a territory, vast areas of which are still unoccupied and unimproved.^ In this country and in this age, it is unreasonable to resort to the mort- main statutes to draw an analogy or to establish the law. The analogy between the case of the corporation and that of the ahen, on which some of the authorities cited rest, seems equally unwarranted. " The escheat of estates to the sovereign," as Judge Redfield puts it,^ " in consequence of a conveyance to an alien, is a result of purely feudal character. It was so held, be- cause an alien owing a foreign allegiance was regarded as incapa- ble of performing the feudal military services to the king, as lord paramount of all the land in the realm. Hence, the conveyance having carried the title out of the former proprietor, and the grantee being incapable of taking the estate, it was held to vest in the king, absolutely, at the death of the first grantee, as an alien could have no heirs to be invested with his bare possession, which was all the estate which ever existed in him, and which was always liable to be divested at any moment upon office found. None of these reasons exist in this country. The right to inter- fere with aliens holding real estate in this country goes upon the basis of some defect in allegiance, and allegiance is a matter per- taining altogether to the national sovereignty." A corporation of one State does not occupy in another State the position of an alien. In the absence of a specific statute, like the Pennsylvania Statute of 1833, it seems very clear that lands acquired and held by a corporation, under the conditions set forth, are not subject to escheat by the State. This conclusion is supported by a late Pennsylvania case. The constitution of that State provides that no corporation doing the business of a common carrier, shall hold or acquire lands, except such as shall be necessary for carrying on its business, but affixes no penalty for a violation. It was accord- 1 The unoccupied territory of the State of Texas alone exceeds in area Great Britain. 2 State V. Railroad Co., 25 Vt. 433.