Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-02-11
staedt. 50 Wis. 5ss (s5 N. w. Rep.

staedt. SO Wis 53S (35 N. W. Rep.
30).'
Apparently these remarks met the
approval of Chamberlain j., who con-
Cured without qualification, but not
of the majority of the court, for Camp
bell, j.. whose concurrence in the
judgment made it effective. confine
his opinion to the point that the re-
lator had such an interest under the |
Act mentioned as entitled him to see
the books in question Sherwood. c. |
j., and Long, j., did not sit and these !
statements may be considered as |
sanctioned by only two of the five JUS |
tices. The case rested on the Michi- !
! gan statute. No English or other de-
ciSiOn was cited that supported the
assertion Of Justice Morse that ne
know of no common law that denied
! the right of free inspection or re-
quired the citizens desiring to make
! it to show some interest in the rec
ord
| Although this language is in
! +eresting as a statement of the opin-
! ion of an able member of a court Of
| high standing it was not only unneces-
t sary for the determination of the case
as controlled by legislative enactment,
| and unsupported by any authority ex
cepting the concurrence of one of the
justices. hit it was a begging of the
question, for If no common law pre-
! walls in this country which prevents.
and there is no decision sustaining
the right of an abstract company or
! others to inspect or copy all the rec
ords in which it. or they. have no in
), terest as owner or agent, it is evil
dent that no such right exists unless
granted by the statute. With no de-
cision conceding or denying such
right nothing appears on which 20
base the assumption that it is au-
thorized by Common Law. The same
may be said regarding the force Of
similar expressions quoted in the
brief from other opinions.
In Day " Button, 96 Mich, 600, It
: was held that the right to examine the
records in the office of the register Of
deeds, and to make memoranda there
from, for the purpose of making q
), set of abstract books was established
) by Burton v. Tuite, supra. but as we
!. have seen. the majority of the court
u did not go so far in the earlier
+ Of these cases. This doctrine As
+. broadened is better warranted by the
statute in that state.
8 Distinguishing those cases and the
!. records in the onlce of the register
II from those in suits between indivi.
( duals, subsequently in Burton v. Rey
r Mods, 40 Mich, 354, the court refused
6 q writ of mandate to compel the
= Clerk of the Circuit court to permi,
one engaged in making abstracts ol
!, title to examine and copy a file in ar
a. action relating to land between pri
'e vate parties, upon a petition which
le negatived notice of the tendency o
IS the action. and did not assert actua
c. notice, nor state that the examination
IS and copying the file was necessary t
v, the completion of the REALTORS work
IS In Brown " Knapp, Mich, 13E
a the citizen seeking and refused In
ie spection Of LIQUOR bonds filed will
81 the county treasurer. and wishing in
:n formation that would aid in prOsecu
Il. ton Of an infraction of the law, ha
- a different interest than one ma,
10 has in the title to another's property.
In Lum v. McCarty. 80 n. j. Law
ay 2S7. leading case cited to suppor
ne the opinion in Burton v. Tuite above
IL the Court overruled Flemming .
10 Clark. l Vroom. $50. and held tina
county clerks we're not entitled t
;e, fees for searches not made by then
to selves or assistants of the records j
ne their Offices, Of deeds. mortgages an
se Judgments The statute provided fo
10 access to the records excepting thos
IN, of judgments in the Circuit Cou.
ST. Tho action was for the recovery {
tn fees paid by the plaintiffs attorne
under protest when he was refuse
an inspection until he paid the same fe-
", for the privilege Of examining tn
an records that the clerk would hav
IN been entitled to charge if he had mad
Ia. the examination. In justification o
III. and bv way of distinguishing. a subs
ng ulant decision by the Supreme COu
ch of New Jerse-- tn which we shall r
20 fer later, it is proper to observe tha
he the issue presented did not relate
ess the right of an abstract company
W. person without interest to copy {
to examine all the records. This shou
IN be borne in mind in considering tn
er- weight to which the opinion is e
titled as bearing on the different issue
VA with which We are confronted.
OF The case is more directly applicab
ful to the question whether one authori
)ns ed by statute under the Designate
ces of call persons" and having an inte
,ss est in property, may have his ATTIC
les ney search the records without Il
md 2ovment of fees" The court sait
he BY the third section of the Act
1ui regulate fees provision is made f
IS the compensation of county clerks !
md certain, services, among which is Z
gu searching of the records in their {
'hc fees. The provision cannot be e
tended bv construction, so as to 2
10 thorize a demand by the clerk for p
Ior for services not in fact. rendered
'ds' him or his assistants. The defenda
not therefore, was not entitled to the re
'pu- in question. under that provision. T
10 only ether provisions which are clai
hsr ed to have bearing on the Questit
.. are the ninth section of the Act
an. specting conveyances.' which. ar
v. providing for the recording Of dee
lep. in hooka IN he furnished for the D