Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1873-02-07

Mr.. BUTLER thought the Senator Earring.
TOM was in error, and showed that the amend
ment did not imply what the Senator had in
ferred in his remarks.
Mr.. BURGESS wanted the bill properly
guarded and gave his reasons why it shall be
amended.
Mr.. FARRISoroS moved that the bill with
the amendments offered be laid upon the ia
BILE and printed, and it was so voted.
! On motion of Mr.. LoTHRoP the report on
an act relating to attachments Of real es-
tate was taken from the table, the question
being on substituting the minority report
| (Which brings in billy for the majority re.
port. ....s..,
Mr.. CHAPLIN said the real question was the
race of diligence between rival attachments,
which was apparent at a glance, and which
he illustrated 1t is the practice and rule
given US fifty years ago. that it dates from
the time the attachment is made. The gist
of the difference between the register of deeds
and attachments is owing to an ignorance Of
the law. If the objection of Ignorance of the
law is to prevail we shall have to repeal all
laws. Every prudent man not knowing
whether the grantor is solvent or not, will
have to pay over the money. There is not
that hardship in the law as many would sup
pose. This old and equitable rule shall not
be wantonly and recklessly thrown away.
Mr.. ABBOT had been in the habit of writing
deeds for years. He had seen great injustice
done in making records of attachments. In
his judgment it was unnecessary to have five
| days in which to make an attachment He
was in favor of substituting the minority re-
port.
| Mr.. PENSELL called for the yeas and nays,
and they were ordered.
Mr.. KrMnALL considered this race be-
tween the sophisticated and unsophisticated
people. The lawyers are sophisticated, but
the common people are unsophisticated.
Mr.. KENNEDY spoke as follows:
The burden of proof Is upon the friends Of
the amendment. 1t rests upon them to show
that the present law is Objectionable on
grounds Of public policy that the proposed
amendment will remove the particular objec-
tions, and that other, and equal ones will not
be substituted. If passed it becomes a SIM
pie proposition to change an existing law of
the State. And why? 1t is alleged that the
present law is burden. do not understand,
that in and Of itself it presents any difficulty.
The presumption that a sworn officer will do
his duty must be admitted. 1t is only when
J considered in connection with the recording
of deeds then, that the burden claimed arises.
What is it? To-day a creditor places an
g attachment upon my estate; it is sufficient in
I law if it receives record on or before the
n fifth day from its date. After the placing Of
that attachment, and before its record con-
e vey my estate by deed. Here then is the
: length and breadth of the difficulty. That il
IS may obtain in any case, it is necessary in the
|. first instance, that convey my entire estate
], or SO much that what remains will not re.
e spond in full to a warranty broken. The case
e supposed does not touch the question of per
!, sonal property, which may be held to satisfy
i, the breach. Again it would be necessary tina,
: the full consideration be paid on delivery oil
). the deed How often would the several con-
: tingencies mentioned obtain in the same con-
G veyance. That they all exist in the same
deed is necessary, before we are called upon
to exercise even ordinary care. Can the dan
e ger. If any, be avoided? l presume no one
will question that three fourths of all convey
. ancing is done among parties we'll known,
each to the other. The integrity, or its op-
posites in either party is understood. Now a
common carrier, or Pledge for hire is bound
to exercise ordinary care and diligence.
Why then should you not exercise as much
care and as much diligence in the manage
ment ofyour own affairs as a common carrier
or PLEDGE for hire is required by law to ex-
ercise in managing the affairs Of another
Suppose for consideration you do business
for another, as negigently as many men do
business for themselves, and loss occur,
would you doubt for moment your liability ?
If guardian by order of court purchased
real estate for his ward, and said estate was
injured by attachment not of record, his want
of care would be held sufficient to charge his
bond? Ordinary care, such care as a pru.
dent man bestows on his own business will
protect you in every instance. The greatest
burden that the present law can present in
any possible case is delay of five days in
the full completion of the purchase. As it
stands to-day you are protected in ninety
nine cases out of one hundred, simply by
complying with the requirements of law in
perfecting your title, and in the one hun
dredth you have full and complete protec-
ton by extending the time in which you con-
summate your purchase over period of five
? days. The same care that the law requires,
when for a consideration you do business for
another, will insure your safety. Why then
{ this amendment? 1t Injuries no obligation
resting on you as an agent, but relieves you
as q principal from any harm that might h.
, erwise result from the grossest negligence.
1t purposes to change certain provisions OF
the general statutes regulating the record OF
, attachments, provisions that have stood with
out complaint for many years. The propos-
ition seems to be this: Inasnuch as the
present law may not protect persons who
neglects their business, we propose to enact
one that will. Suppose the amendment pre-
walls, and becomes a law, what then? viii
ordinary care protect your interests, and the
interests of your client7 viii the exercise OF
the greatest care secure that result: / live
easterly from the shire town in my county,
eighteen miles. My position would have its
parallel in the case Of every attorney not a
resident in one of the shire towns of the state.
Centers OF trade lie westerly from us. There
we seek for credit. To simplify an illustra-
ton l will hypothecate case. My neighbor
becomes embarrassed in business. His affairs
are disarranged to that extent, that his credi-
tors must suffer. A and b who are his credi-
tors, leave Portland on the same train. A
stops in Wiscasset, B passes on to Waldo
f boro'. By the time arrives in Waldoboro',
A has taken out his writ, and secured the
record Of his attachment. What of BIS claim
| speak concerning attachments of real es-
| tate. You suggest that B should have tar
ried at Wiscasset, but the very suggestion
! presents the great objection to this amend
E. ment. The tendency of it must be to central
ize business. You suggest involuntary bank
rurtcy, but proposition is now before Con.
gress, if not already passed, TO repeal the
BANKRUPT act, and a resolution has ma sscd tbis