The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-04-04
THINK TORRENS
LAW WILL STAND
ATTORNEYS DISCUSS DECISION
OF JUDGE BROOKS.
Bart Case Declared to Involve Cir
cumstances Which Could Not Have
Arisen Had Title Been Registered
originally-Case Said to Be Supreme
- ".

Attorneys do not believe that single
decision will knock out the Torrens law.
While the decree Of Judge Brooks yes
terday in the case of P. A. Baart
against Katherine and Michael Martin,
John and Josephine Carl, defendants,
parently blow at the law, in effect, it
is believed to be really an argument in
favor Of the law. The circumstances in
volved in the suit could not have arisen
had the title been registered originally.
Inasmuch as the principle of the Tor
rens law was used as early as the tenth
century in Hungary, IS used entirely in
the western provinces of Canada and is
employed effectively in Great Britain,
owners in Minneapolis are not to be
worried about registered titles. CLAY
ence 81. Childs, one Of the examiners Of
titles under the law, says the Baart case
is an extreme test such as has never
come up elsewhere, even in Illinois
where the system has been in use many
years.
In the case in question the Martins
had executed, in 1897, mortgage to
to Baart and record was made. Thru
forged power Of attorney foreclosure
on the mortgage was begun in 1899, and
thru a forged warrantee deed tile was
transferred later to John Carl. In 1908
the plaintiff first learned of the forger-
les and made complaint to Carl, who
then attempted to obtain registry of
title under the Torrens law. Baart was
falsely referred to as unknown and a
false statement was made in the pro.
ceedinngs to the effect that Carl had
Collision Discovered.
The case was on the April, 1904, cal.
endar, but was postponed until Septem-
Der. After sixty days following decree
an alleged innocent purchaser was dis
covered in Deane, the intervenor. He
was later found to be in collision with
Carl.
The Brooks decision holds that the
plaintiffs rights were not affected by
the fling of the Carl application be
cause his name was not mentioned OF
included among "other persons or par
ties' as required by the Torrens law
and furthermore, that his interest was
acquired prior to such proceedings. Mr.
Ghilds declared today 9y that Torr EN-
get:
wouldn + arise again in fifty years,
said he. "The law in this state seem.
to be that person is not bound by {
decree in which he might nave peer
made a party, but our court has hell
that person whose interest is not IL
any way disclosed by the records is Gu
out by decree; that the decree is bind
ing as to him where unknown part1e
|. are Joined as defendants.
''1n this case the records did not dis
close any interest in the plaintiff and i
! would seem to me that the effect Of tn
decree was to cut out his interest.
Effect Of the Law.
"The effect of the Torrens law, j
strictly construed, would, in my opin
ion, cut out every person whether tn
records showed an interest in him o
not, but this point has not been passe
upon by the supreme court. A deere
in registration has behind it the RI
port Of an examiner Of titles, the de
! cree Of a court and the law Of the stat
which vests the title absolutely in tn
- holder Of the certificate. It is muc
stronger than the ordinary decree in a
action to determine adverse claims.
a "a Torrens title is as strong It'll
. as man can get; # this property ha
been registered the title could not hav
r been forged, probably, as the registra
: must keep on file the signature Of ever
a grantee. I'm assurance fund is provided
h BY the law, also 50 that the plainti
= in such case might have had recours
against the county, -.