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

person they were OF such a pubic |
nature that the members of the COM |
munity had some interest in them in |
general with otner 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 of the expressions "
the courts in this country regarding
them, which agree with few eXcep-
tiOns, tends to the belief that at Com
mon Law 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 prODrietOrS and more frequently
was retained by the owner through
life and passed to the oldest son or
other heirs. There was not so large
prCncrtiCG CT small holdings in fee
nor the activity of sales or frequency
of transfer that exists in this coun-
try. During the crystaliZation Of the
early Common Law the records IN
! England were in the official language
which had been inflicted upon that
country by the Caesars and which was
not observable to the uneducated
masses or to many excepting officials
and professional cOnveyancers. The
part of that language which is sull
! used in convevancing and which has
come to lis 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
! lien upon 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 Gown
try. Brewer u Bellows. picis 1913
Espy v. Anderson, IA Pa. ST. 312:
Easton v. Montgomery, 80 Cal 313;
Re Pearsons. SO Cal 613: Dwight z.
Cutter, 3 Mach. sec, "a Am. D. and
cases cited. Caveat emptor being the
rule with us in the absence of a spec
ial agreement. it is inst and essential
TO the projections of persons intending
to purchase or take encumbrances
that they be allowed the right of in
spectiOn. Sections 1868 and 1864 be-
fore quoted and Grellet v. Heilshorn
4 New. 526; Wilson V. Wilson. % New
273 and McCabe v. Gray. 20 Cal, SIG,
charge subsequent purchasers and
mortgages with notices of every rec.
orded conveyance or writing affectins
, real estate. and when the statute i'm
, poses notice ard liability it must by
implication exte nd the right of exam
nation of the records for the protec-
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 10
those contents with which they are
charged would be an intolerabIe mock
, cry in this dav and generation. com
, parable with that Derpetrated by the
, emperor who published his DEGREES il
, letters SO small on tablets posted SC
high that they could not be read by
the people. and punished for disc
bedience of them. .f ..f -...
We assume that there is no materia
; dispute between the parties here in
relation to the inspection of any rec
ord the examination of which by tbs
, public is provided for the by the Ian
, guage of the statute. such as those
relating to chattel mortgage or news
papers. but that the real issues are re
garding the right of relator to ex
anime and copy without charge al
, | records relating to deeds. mortgages
liens and Lne titles to realty. con
corning the inspection and copying o.
the most of which our statutes are 81
. lent, and secondly pertaining to the
right Of the relator to have free &C
cess to these when employed by per
sons interested. to make searches o
furnish abstracts. ,,---
ReIator comedies that the recorde
may make proper rules for the con
duct Of his office. There appears t.
> be dispute concerning the right t
inspect documents fled hofrre the'
are recorder As the statute make
j. these notice upon filing they are ope'
to examination as soon as filed. tn
same as records generally. and subjec
;. to the same limitations.
r The business Of furnishing abstract
prepared by professional and exper
searchers. and of guaranteeing title
is legitimate one and meets wan
t. of cautious purchasers desiring to b
8 well assured and guaranteed regar,
n ing titles. The tendency in large con
mnnities is to concentrate the ,servic
= which previously was performed b
Il attorneys and cOnyeyancers. Person
% having or seeking to acquire an int
est in property may examine the re
Ords for themselves o" exercise the
choice in EMPLOYING an attorney
some one to search for them. or the
NAV have the abstracting ccmpar
furnish an abstract or guarantee Il
title, but in the absence of any ste
ute comforting the right. and of al
Common law or other decision We
% ranting it. i. is apparent that relat
~ &c not entitled to COW or examine