Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-02-11

of the entire records OF public Office
in which he had no special interest,
the object in view being simply private
gain from the possession and use
thereof.
Realtors do not ask for an inspec-
ton of record or abstract thereof
relating to lands in which they claim
to have any title or interest, or con-
cerning which they desire Information
in contemplation of acquiring some
right or interest, either by purchase
or otherwise. It is not as the agents
or attorneys c. parties seeking infor-
nation because interested or likely to
become so. On the contrary, the
right is based upon neither a present
nor prospective interest in the lands,
but is for the further private gain and
emolument of REALTORS in furnishing
Information therefrom to third parties
for compensation then to be paid. it
Is a request for the law to grant them
the right to inspect the record of the
title to every persons land in the
county, and obtain copies or abstracts
thereof. to enable them hereafter. for
a fee or reward. to furnish copies to
such as may desire the same"
Relator contends that this opinion
was reversed by the same court in
the leading case of Burton v. Tuite,
7S Mich, 363 determined in 1889.
such is conceded to be the effect in
the language there and in a number of
decisions made later in that and other
states, but in reality and stripped OF
dicta it was held that sales-books kept
| by the receiver Of taxes, containing a
/, statement of the sales OF delinquent
! tax lands. and bv him turned over to
t the city treasurer, who noted therein
/ redemptiOns and sales. were public
records and that relator. who had
| been employed by the owner of the
/ property to examine in regard to tax
sales. or where these sales were liens
] upon property to which he was fur
nishing abstracts, had the right to
! make such examinations of the pub
lie records as the necessity Of his
business might require. and that this
right was assured to him under Act
4 No 205. Laws of Michigan Of 1889
which provides: That the officers
: having the custody of any county. city
or town records in this State shall
furnish proper and reasonable facili
! ties for the inspection and examina
: ton of the records and files in theil
respective Ofhces, and for maxim:
: memoranda or transcripts therefrOm
: during the usual business hours, to al
: persons having occasion to make ex
! animation OF them for any lawful put
9 pose, subject to conditions similar
u to those quoted in the Act Of 1875 r.
T lating to registers.
1 IA delivering the opinion, Morse, !
Il said: Il do not think that any con
r mon law ever obtained il this fire.
y government that would deny to tn
+, people thereof the right of free acces
l. to. and public inspection of. public rel
K ords. They have an interest alway
g in such records, and know of no Law
written or unwritten that provide
ls that, before an inspection or examin'
a ton of a public record is made, tn
8 citizen who wishes to make it mu:
show some special interest in sue
Is record. I have a right, il / see d
le to examine the title Of my neighbor
=. property, whether or not l have q
% interest in it. or intend tohave.
s. have also the right to examine ar
m title that l see fit. recorded in Il
y, public ofices, for the purpose of Sc
ing such information, il I desire.
H., one has ever disputed the right of
IS, lawyer to enter the registers Of1c
e and examine the title Of his client
~ land as recorded, or the title of tt
40 opponent of his client. ard to char,
or his client for the Information so o
u tanned. This is done for private gal
a. as a part of the lawyers daily bu:
IL ness, and by the means of which, Wi
en- other labOrs, he earns his bread.
g. Upon what different footing can {
IT. abstractor be placed, within the la
es without giving a privilege to one m:
On or class of men that is denied to a
e. other? The REALTORS business is tn
m of making abstracts of title. and fl
n nishing the same to those wanti1
TO them, for a compensation. In SUI
Ike business it is necessary for him
'ul consult and make memoranda of t
Is contents of these books. His busine
ay is a lawful one. the same as the la
MS yer's and why has not he the right
nd inspect and examine public records
&C. his business as well as any other p'
&c son?
in 1T is plain to see that the legis
ge ture intended to assert the right
SD all citizens, in the pursuit of lawf
i'd business, to make such examinatio
he of the public records in public offic
les as the necessity of their busine
lie might require, subject to such ru
and restrictions as are reasonable a
c. proper under the circumstances. T
IN RESPONDENT in this case is the law
lot custodian of these sales-books. and
IN responsible for their safe keeping a
he may make and enforce proper re-
H. a cicfn uyifh mi
ON right, for the use Of them.
the 1T follows that he has no right
rho demand any fee or compensation
hat the privilege Of access to the recor
led or for any examination thereof I
ne. made nv himself or his clerks or de
ere ties. He has no exclusive right
or search the records against any otl
Gu citizen. Lum. " McCarty, 80 N.
zen Law, 2S7; Boylan v. Warren. 80 K
lot 3O1 (1S~ Pac Rep. 174; State
tch Rachac. 81 MINI. 372 (35 N. w. r