The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-05-02

.lie plural of mud, mud? Would yo
say many mud? And what says til
| University?
The Torrens Systetn-Ob Objection
No. 4.
In further discussing the objections t.
the Torrens system, Mr.. u. c. Massi,
says:
Another objection raised by some
lawyers to the Torrens system is thai
tho bill entirely does away with the
statute ofiiimtatlons concerning land; or,
to Use the language OF another earnest
opponent, that the long-established
and beneficial policy of auieting tito by
actual adversary possession Is abolished
But neither one OF these statements is
strictly accurate. In the first place, the
bill does not entirely do away with tho
statute of limitations concerning land, but
substitutes u new limitation In place OF
the old. Nor, in the second place, is the
long-establshed and .bencficial, policy of
quicting title by actual adversary pos
session abolished, except as to titles
which need. and can need, no such quiet
ing; for the bill in effect applies only to
registered lands the title to which has
been judicially and finally asccrtained
and declared. and therefore forever
alter. nor seek to alter, any rule of ex-
isting law as to unregistered lands. And
now pursuing the first statement quoted,
attention is called to the fact that the
Legislature has from time to time short
ened the period of limitations in various
cases, and the proposed Torrens bill is
only another step in the same direction.
There was time in Virginia when
q writ of right upon the possession or
seisn of ones ancestor or predecessor
might have been brought at any time
within fifty years. But the writ OF right
has been abolished and succeeded by the
action of ejectment. which can only be
brought within fifteen years east or with
in ten years west of the Allcghanies.
Under the proposed Torrens bill no petit
ton for rehearlng nor appeal can be taken
from any decree of registration. except
within one year. And this provision has
been construed and sustained by the
courts in other Torrens acts as a stat
uto of limitations, thus reducing the
period for the assertion OF adverse title
o,l 1olyt rfr thn
allowed for appeals, writs OF error or
snpersedeus to any final Judgment de-
cree or order. And why should there be
any difference? The amounts and rights
involved and settled In any final judy
ment, decree Or order are liable to be,
and often are, quite as important as the
title to lands. Indeed. tho title to lands
Is often the very point decided by such
final Judgment, decree or order. And II
one year is sufficient for an appeal writ
of error or superscdeas under our present
laws in such cases. it ought to be suft1-
cient for the determination OF title under
tho Torrens system.
"And pursuing the second statement
quoted. it may we'll be questioned whether
..he -lnng-estahlishcd policy OF quie.ins
titles by adversary possession is beaNs
fetal policy 1t is indeed n policy which
might have justification in rude times,
in uncivilized communities, and In tho
wilds OF waste and unappropriated lands;
but surely it is not impossible to con-
ceive of something better for tho enlight-
encd days in which we live, when lands
are so rapidly increasing in value and
must all be soon cultivated and fully
exploited to meet the demands of the
twentieth century We cannot afford to
allow our titles to remain In doubt and
during the long years required
for settlement under the tedious and un-
certain process of adversary possession,
and the sooner they are clearly settled
tho better. 1t will beia happy day for
the owners Of real estate in Virginia
when the reign of the squatter is ended
and the danger Of robber titles is for
ever banishcd. And to this end We should
all welcome the Torrens system"