The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1904-05-15
ABSTRACT CLERKS
RECORDS FAULTY
Property Owners VIII Make This
Claim in Petition to
District Court.

The Ramsey county district court
will probably be called upon early next
week to take some action in regard to
the Claim that is put forward by inter
ested property owners that the Office
of the county abstract clerk, under
existing conditions, cannot properly
certify to the Torrens law lands in
Ramsey county from the land records.
There are said to be grave defects
in the books OF the abstract clerk
which make it impossible for that Of
fetal to certify abstracts where titles
are submitted for registration under
the Torrens law. 1t is contended that
the abstract clerk should certify only
according to his abstract records and
not from the land records, which are
admittedly incomplete.
The complaint is not made that the
abstract clerk, Albert Schuetz, is in
competent, but it is contended that he
cannot make a better abstract than the
books of his office disclose.
1t is said that a petition will be filed
with the judges of the district court
Monday in which the petitioners will
ask that an investigation be had and
some action taken looking to the relief
of the petitioners.
Instances Are Cited.
Striking instances of the incomplete
ness of the tract indexes in the office Of
the county abstractor are cited.
An abstract issued by his office April
20, 1904, of lots s, 9 and 10, block IT, st.
Paul proper, and which contain no less
an important business property than
the Pioneer Press building, omits TWEEN
ty-seven entries, and the natural infer
ence is that the tract indexes and alb
Sfr9 of Fpanrdc of tho oh
do not show these transfers or they
would have been included in the alb
stract.
An abstract Of lot, G. W. TrumbulPs
subdivision, issued March 1, 1904, omits
SIX instruments and among others a
mortgage of $1,000 which had been re-
corded against the property and later
satisfied. Neither the mortgage nor
its satisfaction had been included in
the abstract, and it is said that neither
Is on record in the abstract office.
The abstract of lots / to 4, inclusive,
and lot 8; block 8, Vanderburgh's ad-
dition to Hoyt's addition to st. Paul,
issued April 4, 1904, omits twenty-one
instruments.
The abstract for lot 4, block 2, Joel
Whitney's addition, issued March s,
1904, omits eight instruments.
The abstract for lot 16, block 6, Nor
tons addition, fails to contain a sher-
ifs certificate which is required to
complete the abstract.
An abstract for lots 1 and 2, block
II, St Paul proper, issued April Is,
1904, is short fourteen instruments, and
an abstract Of the westerly 80 feet of
lot 19, block 2. McKenty's outIots, is
sued Sept. II, 1900, omits nine instru-
ments.
Criticism Aimed at Office.
The criticism is aimed at the Office
rather than the abstract clerk. The
only complaint that is found by real
estate men is that the clerk should not
attempt to certify according to the
land records, but should confine him
self to the abstract records. The fault
lies with the plan. Abstract clerks
have always been elected by the peo-
pie and incompetent men have in the
past twenty live or thirty years in
someseases been chosen. These neglect
ed to keep up the records Of their Of
ices from day to day and grave onis-
slons crept in making it in many cases
impossible for the abstract clerk to
give complete abstracts of certain
pieces of property