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

-
claiming certain copyheld lands
within the manor to inspect the
court rolls and take copies. The lor9 s
claiming himself to be the owner OF
the lands, resisted, on the ground tnat {
there was no cause depending, but
the Court of Kings Bench granted the I
writ, Notwithstanding the opinion De.
fore expressed in Rex. v. AllgoOd,
r. r. 742. Lord Peterborough saying:
Il do not know why there should be
any cause depending in order to tound
an application of this sort. This is
not the impertinent intrusion OF
stranger, but the application Of one
who is clearly entitled to the copy.
hold, unless there be conveyance OF
it by those under whom he claims;
he may. therefore, we'll require to see
whether there appears upon the rolls
to be any such conveyance So in
Rex v. Tower, 4 NJ & S. 162, on con-
troversy, but without suit, between a
tenant of the manor and the lord. as !
to cutting underwood the court grant
ed a mandamus to inspect the court
rolls so far as related to that subject.
Likewise in Rex v. Justices CT Lei !
cester, B. &. c. S9l. mandamus
was granted that certain ratepayers
be allowed to inspect and take copies
of the proceedings and documents re-
Iating to the parish rates. although no
suit was pending; and while this case
in disapproved in Rex V. Vestrymen OF
ST. Marlybone, 5 A. & E. 26S, and
overruled in Rex V. Justices of Stat
fordshire. 6 A. & - "a. vet in neither
case is it suggested that it was err
roneOus because no action had been
brought. The disapprObation turns
upon the principle that the rate payers
had no interest to be subserved by the
inspection since no information to be
obtained from the documents could
aid them in the enforcement or pro-
lection of any lawful claim. Lord
Denman saving, in the case last cited
that the subject matter was not one
which the rate payer could bring be-
fore the court as a litigant. and hence
there was not that direct and tangible
interest which is necessary to bring
persons within the rule on which the
court acts in granting inspection OF
public documents. In Rex V. Mer-
chant Tailors' Co, 2 B. & AID. lis. al
though mandamus was refused to
members of the company seeking an
inspection of all the records books,
papers and muniments of the COM
pany, because of the generality Of the
application, it was conceded by all the
judges that if the application hal
been limited to some legitimate ana
particular purpose in respect of which
the. examination became necessary. It
would have been allowed and that
there was no rule that to warrant an
order to inspect corporation docu-
ments, there must actually have been
suit instituted. But whenever the
subject was, by reason of his relation
to the common interest, permitted to
litigate for its protection, the right OF
inspection was fully secured to him
Thus, in Rex " Shelley, T. r. 141
where some of the burgage tenants
were testing by quo warranto the
right of the defendant to be a burgess
a ful4s inspection of the court rolls
not limited to the evidence of their
own titles. was granted them. 1T
Rex v. Babb, T. R. 579 on an infor
nation by three aldermen to inquire
into the right of Woolmer to be mayor
of Great Grimsby, the REALTORS had !
rule for the inspection and copies OF
all the public books, records and
papers of the borough of Great Grims
by regarding the subject in dispute.
In West JERSEY Title and Guaranty
Co., v. Barber, 40 N. ]. Eq. 474, i
was held that an abstract company
has the same rights as an attorney o.
individuals to search the county records
for others, and when employed to ex
anime the title to any particular piec,
Of property, becomes subrOgated 4
the right of the employer to have &C
cess to them, notwithstanding it con
templates making contract of guar
anty Of the title
In Barber v. West Jersey Title an,
Guaranty Co., SO NJ j. E. 158, decidet
in 1894, five years after Burton (
Tuite, the complainant claimed TIL
right to have free access to the RET
crds and files daily during bushes
hours for the purpose of inspecting
and making abstracts and memoranda
1t was held that every person ha
the right to examine the public rec
ords relating to any title in which h
is interested, without the payment c
fees, subject to reasonable rules an
regulations, and that the abstract con
pany has this privilege when employe
to examine and guarantee the title I
particular piece of property, but ha
not the right to occupy the Office c
the clerk for the purpose of maxim
an abstract of the records in order
set up rival business to the clerl
In considering the following portion {
the opinion it is well to remember tn
New Jersey statutes providing for il
spection as before noted:
1.-The case of Lum ". McCarty,
Vr. 387 is relied upon to support thi
decree. In that case Lum was en-
ployed to search a specific title, an
this court held that he had right
access to the records of the clerk
Office, for that purpose. without tn
payment of fees to the clerk.
But that case is not authority fC
the contention that any one may o
cupy the offices of the county cler
until he has made copies of all tn
records in the care of the clerk ff