Midrash su II Re 9:20

(Fol. 48b) Our Rabbis were taught: Those who are executed by the government, their estates belong to the government; and those that are executed by the court, their estates belong to their heirs. R. Juda, however, maintains that their estates belong to the heirs even when they are executed by the government. The sages said to him: Is it not said (I Kings, 21, 16) And it came to pass, when Achab heard that Naboth was dead, that Achab rose up to go down to the vineyard of Naboth, the Yizreelite, to inherit it? And he replied: "Achab was his brother's son and was a legal heir." "But had not Naboth sons?" Whereupon R. Juda said: "He slew him and his sons, as it is said (II Kings, 9, 20) Surely I have seen yesterday the blood of Naboth, and the blood of his sons." The Rabbis, however, maintain that the expression sons refers to those who would come from him had he remained alive. He who says that the estates belong to the government is correct, because it is written (I Kings, 21, 13) Naboth hath blasphemed God and the King. But why was it necessary for him who said the estates belong to the heirs to add and the King? And according to your theory that [they belong to the heirs], why was God mentioned? You may say it was done to increase the anger of the people. For the same reason and the king was also mentioned, He who says that it belongs to the government is justified because it is written (Ib. 2, 30) No; but here will I die — which means: I do not wish to be counted among those who were killed by the government, so that my estate should belong to it. But according to him who says that it belongs to the heirs, what difference did it make to Joab? To remain alive a little longer.