But being, as it is, in derogation of the state's sovereignty, the statute must be given a strict construction. Engle v. State Land Board, 164 Or. 109, 115, 99 P.2d 1018; Wood v. Sprague, 165 Or. 122, 125, 106 P.2d 287; Haley v. Sprague, 166 Or. 320, 325, 111 P.2d 1031; Peters v. McKay, 195 Or. 412, 439, 238 P.2d 225, 246 P.2d 585. These cases all involve claims arising under ORS 120.130, supra. This court has repeatedly held that recovery under the provisions of the foregoing statute can be enforced only by the persons to whom consent has been given and that: "The legal title of the state to escheated property can be divested only in the mode and by the persons designated by law."

It was held, both in Alaska and Oregon, that as to real estate the escheat actually occurs or becomes vested immediately upon the death of the intestate, subject to be divested if there are in fact heirs who later make themselves known. United States v. Fish, D.C.Alaska 1914, 5 Alaska 31; In re Ohlsen's Estate, 1938, 158 Or. 197, 75 P.2d 6; Wood v. Sprague, 1940, 165 Or. 122, 106 P.2d 287, 290. The Alaska case involved a controversy between the United States, to whom escheat was first provided for, and the Territory, upon amendment of the statute following passage of the Organic Act.

89 Or at 232. Other cases invoking the asserted power are: Olson v. Heisen, 90 Or. 176, 175 P. 859 (1918); Miller Lum. Co. v. Davis, 94 Or. 507, 185 P. 462, 1107 (1919); Levine v. Levine, 95 Or. 94, 187 P. 609 (1920); Obermeier v. Mortgage Co. Holland-America, 123 Or. 469, 259 P. 1064, 260 P. 1099, 262 P. 261 (1927); Wood et al v. Sprague et al, 165 Or. 122, 106 P.2d 287 (1940). McKinney v. Nayberger et al, 138 Or. 203, 220, 295 P. 474, 2 P.2d 1111, 6 P.2d 228, 229 (1931), Patterson v. Horsefly Irrigation Dist., 157 Or. 1, 69 P.2d 282, 70 P.2d 36 (1937); and State v. Cummings, 205 Or. 500, 534, 288 P.2d 1036, 289 P.2d 1083 (1955), mark a departure from the decisions just referred to.

The foregoing was quoted by the court from 59 CJ, States, § 461. It was held that suit by an administratrix had not been authorized by the statute and that the defendant's demurrer should have been sustained. In Wood et al. v. Sprague et al., 165 Or. 122, 106 P.2d 287, the plaintiffs, as heirs of a deceased person, brought action to recover moneys alleged to have escheated to the state. Referring to the language of the statute which authorizes such actions, the court said:

It is the common practice in this state for parties who have an interest in the subject-matter of the litigation and in obtaining the relief demanded, to join together as plaintiffs in a single complaint. That has been especially the practice in the prosecution of claims of the kind now before us: Fenstermacher v. State, 19 Or. 504, 25 P. 142; Young v. State, 36 Or. 417, 59 P. 812, 60 P. 711, 47 L.R.A. 548; Engle v. State Land Board 164 Or. 109, 99 P.2d 1018; and Wood v. Sprague, 165 Or. 122, 106 P.2d 287. This practice conserves the time of the court, or the parties and of the witnesses. It minimizes costs. It should be encouraged. There is nothing in our code of pleading nor in § 21-113 which forbids that practice.

Where there is a living heir of the decedent, even though he may be unknown to the administrator at the time of the administration of the estate, the state takes no title to the personal property of the estate by escheat. Wood v. Sprague (1940), 165 Ore. 122, 106 P.2d 287; State, ex rel. Rich, v. Page (1941), 33 Ohio Law Abs. 647; In re Estate of Kavanaugh (1960), 11 Wis.2d 619, 106 N.W.2d 405; Estate of Payne (1932), 208 Wis. 142, 242 N.W. 553; 20 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d 205, Escheat, Section 12; 1934 Ohio Atty. Gen. Op. 134; 27 American Jurisprudence 2d 879, 912, Escheat, Sections 11, 45; 30(A) Corpus Juris Secundum 942, Escheat, Section 14. A valid finding of escheat by a trial court must be that there are no heirs, not that "to the knowledge of plaintiff there are no known next-of-kin." The specific mandate of the statute governing escheats of property to the state must be strictly followed to create a valid finding and judgment of escheat by the Probate Court. Robinson v. State (Tex.Civ.App. 1935), 87 S.W.2d 297; Maurer v. Mihalyne (1957), 105 Ohio App. 83; cf., Lincoln Tavern v. Snader (1956), 165 Ohio St. 61.