of the owners of unclaimed property; (2) to relieve holders of the annoyance, expense, and liability of keeping such property; (3) to preclude multiple liability; and (4) to give the adopting state use of considerable sums of money which otherwise is windfall to holders. An-not., 98 A.L.R.2d 304, 309 (1964). The act is general in its application to all holders of unclaimed property but includes specific provisions directed toward property held respectively by banks, business associations, life insurance corporations, utilities, fiduciaries, and state courts, officers, and agencies. The state’s interest in unclaimed property has been recognized as a power “as old as the common law itself.” Anderson National Bank v. Luckett, 321 U.S. 233, 251, 64 S.Ct. 599, 609, 88 L.Ed. 692 (1944) (<HOLDING>). 1. It is clear that compliance with both the
holding that the substantive provisions and reporting requirements of an unclaimed property law are valid as applied to national banks holding that statutory notice provisions for notice of default and opportunity to cure were waived by provisions of note as to one obligor though provisions applied to coobligor who used property as residence holding that such provisions are valid holding that a state statute that affects the governments ultimate liability is to be applied as substantive state law under the ftca holding that pleading rules are substantive