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

which could only serve to satiate
thirst for scandal. constitute another
class regarding which there are often
stronger reasons for denying examina-
lions by disinterested persons than of
instruments pertaining to land. Bur
ton v. Reynolds, supra. Re Caswell,
1SR. l. 1876. See ConlOn v. Orr, Il Cal
43.
Again there is reason for distin-
gushing from the case at bar that Of
People v. Cornel. AZ Barb. 329. rever-
sing 80 How 149 ard AZ Barb. 3s9,
and the English cases cited in con-
nection Herewith, upon which so
much reliance is placed. A member
of municipal corporation may have
an interest, not special but in COM
mon with others, that entities him
to inspect its records. which is quite
different rom what one man has liz
the private land titles of others, and
me English cases we have mentioned,
a part Of which are relied upon BY
relator indicates this distinction.
1t is said that during the memory OF
us all it has been the custom in this
State to allow free inspection of the
records. This is undoubtedly true, bu.
the examinations have generally been,
| limited in their nature and made by
| persons having some interest in ~
property to serve or by attorneys or
! others acting in their behalf. 1t has
not been customary fc- anyone to in
! spect. copy or duplicate all the rec
ords in the offices of the county rec
orders, and with one exception, so far
as we are aware. no one but relator
has ever sought this privilege in this
, commonwealth.
From a review of the cases it is ap.
parent that there is much conflict as
to whether under statutes such as we
are seen to have relating to some rec
ords and providingfor inspection by the
public, or by all persons desiring, the
right of examination should be limited
to those having some interest, present
!, or prospective. in the property TO
: which the record relates or should be-
J freely extended to all
1t may be noted that our statutes
relating to the records of deeds, real
: estate mortgages. and most convey
, ances do not contain provisions for
, inspection which bring them under
either class of these c )nfiicting decis-
ions.
, TIE principle involved has been be
logged by many inadvertent state
: ments OF judges. but no case is found
in the common law and none in this
, country, which contains the right Of
| an abstract or title guaranty company
5 or CT an individual to copy or examine
{ all the records relating to private land
= titles, excepting decisions based on
statutes clearly giving that right and
containing terms which do not pre-
vail in this State. The judicial asser-
= tons that records such as these We're
public and open to the inspection of
all persons, were in states with legis-
e lative enactments so declaring. or
v were in actions where inspection was
r denied to the owner or his agent, or
to some one claiming a common or
public interest in the record. or which
:, related to evidence or questions IF
= public policy. or issues not involving
= the right to examine or copy all the
, records relating to lands And fur
Their. if it be conceded that these rec
=, - ords are public and open to public in
:, spection, as has been said, it may
. still be held that they are public only
!, to that extent that they may be freely
:. examined by all persons having any
!. interest in the property affected by
: them. or under the ordinary rules of
;. agency by the attorney or representa-
= tive of persons so interested.
- The filing and recording of docu-
ments relating to- private titles is at
private expense. and although the rec
ords regarding them are public, they
may not be considered so in that
broad sense in which books and en-.
y tries relating to elections. revenues,
;, fees and the acts and conduct of Off
:. Gals of more general concern or in
terest, are considered public AS re-
cards the needs of inspection, records
l. may be divided ir.o four or more
n classes 1t is most important to have
g free examination and sneedy Dublica-
re ton Of the statutes and decisions
IS which make the law by which the PEG.
IS pie are governed. and by which they
n are charged with notice in their con.
s. duct. 1t is also essential to the pub.
lie welfare that records relating to
e revenues, elections. fees and official
a. acts generally be open to inspection
q. Access to the files and copies of docu
=, ments relating to titles to property
q. by persons who have, or are about
IS to acquire. an interest. is necessary
>. for their protection. PROCEEDINGS in
al civil suits are sometimes of such a
IS scandalous nature that closed doors
CT are justified and publicity is better
e suppressed
n AS we have seen where the statute
5, provides for inspection by all persons
III unless the language wos broad in a.,
IS lowing the taking of copies and mem
oranda by any one desiring, the court!
IS have generally refused to comnel tbs
g., recording officer to allow the inspec
Id ton of all records and limited the eX
"a aminatiCns to those made by or oil
n behalf of persons having some interes
Sc In the property, or what is generally
tie the same lAing, to current calls for at
lie stacts or pending negotiations.
IS. Under fee bills substantially anala
s. sous to ours and at Common Law per
IN sens having an interest in the proper