The Hawaiian gazette., 1903-02-10
wa, bs summsfisea. a. Expense. he.

I IAleNHfI NffaNfN ~ the constantly
inoIsaslHe shain of oonyesances, and
consequent expensive abstracts. aud
opinion of counsel on the title.
Delay. because NJ the necessary alb
stracts. OF furnishing evidence 10 sup
ply the breaks In the record ~ the
title. and ~ negotiations 10 correct de-.
fleets. opinion of counsel ON the title.
Insecurity. because OF mistakes In
the abstracts. and because court Of
law may give an opinion contrary to
the opinion OF counsel tor counsel
do make mistakes OF law) Often no
counsel can foretell what jury would
find on the facts, II before him for
opinion on facts. as we'll as law. De-
lay is further occasioned by these de-
fects. and real estate is prorerbially n
SLOW" asset.
Experience In Massachusetts, indi-
Gates that the Torrens system will cor
rect these defects.
| /. 1t will make land quick" asset
2. Initial registration will be equal
| to a single transfer under the present
system. In subsequent conveyances
the transfer will be much less In or
| binary cases the cost will be from two
to three dollars.
3. Promptness. When once regis
tered the transfer or mortgage includ-
ing the examination of the title can
be completed within an hour.
4. The records are simplified and
shortened. No conveyances are re-
corded. A deed is only binding con-
tract to sell and to deliver the certif-
cate Of title to the buyer, and an
authority to the buyer to transfer the
title on the registrars books.
In general, the principles Of the
Torrens land system in the United
States are:
1. An examination Of title by a
court of competent jurisdiction, with
actual or constructive notice to all
claimants, and unknown owners.
2. A registration of the map and
the title found upon such examination.
8. Issuance by an administrative
officer Of certificate of such title.
with it's membranes thereon noted.
4. The recalling of such certificate
and the re-registration of title with
every subsequent transfer.
S. The barring of any claims or in
terests in the land not noted on the
original certificate and the copy there
of issued.
6. Indemnity against loss by mis-
take or fraud on the part of the pur-
chaser by a government insurance
fund.
In Canada, further valuable pro-
vision is made in the law, for, in On
tario, there is a procedure for regis
tering the fact that the claimant is in
adverse possession without record
title, claiming to own the premises.
The preliminary certificate merely
proves the fact of adverse possession
from the date Of the certificate, which
would ripen into a registerable title,
after the lapse of sufficient period of
years. In this Territory now, it
would require ten years before the GER
tificate only could be used to secure
registered title. This does not pre-
vent title being proved by previous
possession in addition thereto, as Is
done today. 1t is an admirable
method of preserving evidence. We
believe that this is very valuable ad-
dition to the law, If to be introduced
here.
Therefore, we recommend that a
statute for registering land titles be
passed for this Territory, that the
statute of Massachusetts, be made a
model in adapting the system to the
needs Of this Territory, with the addi-
ton of the possessory title certificate,
as found in the Province of Ontario
Following is the appendix to the pre-
liminary report of the committee on
land title registration
photography relating to this system
referring to books accessible in Homo
lulu.
Dumas on Land Title Registration
gives about four lectures on the history
of the subject.
Jones on Torrens Land System is a
volume of 500 pages, giving the Mani
toba and Ontario Acts, and referring to
English Acts. Owned by Robertson &
Wilder.
Leonard A. Jones has written a lead
ing article In the spring of 1902 Civ
ing the condition of the law in the
United States. SO Am. L. r. No. 8.
A valuable collection of articles is
found in "a Central Law Journal, 2S1,
and the late news in regard to the do
ing of Virginia and other states is found
in "a Central Law Journal, 461
The legal decisions upon the subject
in the United States are the follow
ing:
Illinois and Ohio, declared their first
Acts unconstitutional, People VS.. Chase,
165 H.. 526. and State VS.. Guilbert, 56
Ohio st. r.. 575. 6l7. The defects have
been remeded and the law sustained In
People VS.. Simon, 176 H., 1876; Douglas
vs.. Westfall, SO Northwestern Reporter,
175 (Minn), and the leading case of
Tyler VS.. the Judges, etc, 175 Mass,
II; 6s Am. st. r., 175.
All of the reports are full OF matter
which will be great value to the Legls-
lature when 1t comes to consider the
passing of the laws which will be
brought before 1t during its session.