Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-02-13

munity had some interest in them in |
general with other citizens. and diff |
ferent from what one man ordinarily |
has in records relating to the private |
property of others.
An examination Of these English |
authorities and CT the expressions # !
the courts in this country regarding
them, which agree with few eXcep- |
tons, tends to the belief that at Com
mon Law a party could not compel an
inspection of the records relating to
titles in which he had no personal Or
public interest. The times are chang
ed and these old cases are not so ap-
plicable to our present conditions. or
to the rights or needs of abstracting
and title guaranty companies. which
are of modern origin. The most Of
the reality in England was held in
large estates by the nobility and land
ed proprietors and more frequently
was retained by the owner through
life and passed to the oldest son or
ether heirs. There was not so large
a proportion Of small holdings in fee
nor the activity of sales or frequency
Of transfer that exists in this cCul-
try. During the clystalization Of the
early Common Law the records N
England were in the official language
which had been inflicted upon that
country by the Caesars, and which was
not discernable to the Uneducated
masses or to many excepting officials
and professional cOnyevancere TIE
part Cf that language which is stIll
used in cGnvevancing and which has
come to us from the Romans through
the mother country has been angli-
cized or americanized and within the
ordinary knowledge of people possess
ing our advanced common education.
There are other words. phrases and
legal terms still Ineligible to few
excepting lawyers and Latin scholars.
In England judgments were not a
lien uDon land and the seller of realty
was required to furnish an abstract
which relieved the purchaser from the
necessity of examining the records.
while the reverse is true in this cCUn-
try. Brewer V. Bellows + Pick. 1913
Espv V. Anderson. Il Pa. St. 3l2:
Easton V. Montgomery. 80 Cal 313:
Re Pearsons. as Cal 613, Dwight T.
Cutter, 3 N.lch. sec, Ga Am. D. and
cases cited. Cayeat emptor being the
/ rule with lis in the absence of spec
ie'i ASi 'NiiiSiit, II 10 just anu tSStutltl
to the projections of persons intending
to purchase or take encumbrancps
that they be allowed the right of in
spection. Sections 1868 and 1864 be-
fore quoted and Grellet V. HeilshOrn
New. 526: Wilson V Wilson, % New
273 and McCabe V. Gray 90 Cal. SIG.
charge subsequent purchasers and
mortgag es with notices of every rec
Crded conveyance or writing affecting
real estate. and when the statute i'm
poses notice and liability it must by
implication extend the right of exam
nation of tt records for the Drotec-
ton OF any whom are in a position to
be injured without such inspection.
( To charge anyone who may sustain in
! jury with notice of the contents of
/ records, and then deny free access 20
j those contents with which they are
charged would be an intolerable mock
cry in this day and generation. COM
! parable with that perpetrated by the
emperor who published his DEGREES in
: letters so small on tablets posted so
high that they could not be read by
the people. and punished for DISC
! bedience of them
! We assume that there is no material
dispute between the parties here IN
! relation to the inspection of any rec
! ord. the examination Of which by the
public is provided for the by the Ian
! guage of the statute. such as those
/ relating to chattel mort ga es or news
papers. but that the real issues are re-
garfing the right of relator to eX-
| anime and copy without charge all
records relating to deeds, mortgages,
! liens and lne titles to realty CON
corning the inspection and copying of
the most of which our statutes are ST
! lent. and secondly pertaining to the
| right of the relatOr to have free ac-
| cess to these when employed by per-
! sons interested. to make searches or
furnish abstracts
RelatOr comedies that the record ar
may make proper rules for the con-
duct of his office There appears to
he a disDute concerning the right to
| inspect documents filed hnfCre +hov
are recorder. AS the statute makes
| these notice upOn fling they are open
to examination as soon as filed tho
same as records generally. and subject
to the same limitations.
The business of furnishing abstracts
prepared by professional and expert
searchers and of guaranteeing titles
is legitimate one end meets a want
of cautious purchasers desiring to be
well assured and guaranteed regard
ing titles. The tendency in large com
muntes is to concentrate the service
which previously was performed by
attorneys and cOnveyancers Persons
having or seeking to acquire an inter
est in property may examine the rec
Ords for themselves or exercise thei
choice in EMPLOYING an attorney y
some one to search for them, or the,
NAV have the sbstractinc cCrlpan,
furnish an abstract or guarantee tn
| title, but in the absence of any stat
ute comforting the right. and of an
Common law or other decision wal
: ranting it. i is apparent that rotate
&c not entitled t. con- or examine a
D the records as sought by its petition
81,