Correspondence put a deed on record, registered the title, con veyed to a purported bona fide purchaser, and the title has passed out of the real owner without any recourse whatever to any fund or against anybody. This is a result that actually can happen under the law.
487
are included within this statutory desig nation, and that the posting and publish ing of the summons and notice of object of action, as required by the Torrens Law, is sufficient notice to them, and
ments prevented my attendance at the
that the same is not inimical to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Con
last annual meeting of the New York
stitution of the United States, which
Unfortunately
professional
engage
State Bar Association, and consequently
provides that no person shall be deprived
I could not answer the gentleman then
of his property without due process of law. But the gentleman who cites this
and there, and it seems that there was no one present sufficiently familiar with
the Torrens Law to expose the absurdity of this supposititious case. The vice of this so-called argument arises from the fallacy of the premises. I think it was Josh Billings who once remarked, "It is better not to know so
supposititious case, the like of which has never arisen during the past fifty years, while the Torrens Law has been in suc cessful operation in many countries and states, involving the disposition of
The sad adventure
property aggregating many millions of dollars in value, fails to discriminate between owners of record and persons
of the unfortunate owner of real estate who goes to Europe for a six months’
having a claim not of record. He also makes use of this ambiguous language —
vacation and then returns, only to find that during his absence some one else has become possessed of his property, and that he has no redress, could not
property." What does he mean by this phrase? If he wishes to convey the
much than to know so many things that are not so."
possibly happen, by the wildest stretch of imagination, under the wise provisions
and safeguards of the Torrens Law. In the first place, it must be borne in mind, as I have already pointed out in previous articles, that there is a clear distinction in the Torrens Law between the record owner or lienor and the person who merely claims some right, interest or lien in the premises, which is not
“a man may own a piece of vacant
idea that he owns the property by virtue
of a deed or other instrument duly recorded, then I can only say that his hypothetical conclusion is wholly in correct and unfounded. The Torrens Law distinctly provides that "all persons, having or claiming any right or interest in, or lien upon the property or any part thereof, as shown by the Examiner's Certificate of Title," which includes all record owners, must be specifically
Individuals of the latter
named as parties defendant, and final
class are included in the statutory desig nation “All other persons, if any, having any right or interest in, or lien upon the property afi'ected by this action, or any
judgment and decree of title registration cannot be entered until after all such
of record.
portion thereof." The United States Supreme Court, by its unanimous de cision in American Land Company v. Zeiss, (219 U. S. 44), has unanimously declared that all such persons, having any right, interest or lien not of record,
record served protect answer
owners have been personally and given an opportunity to their interests by interposing to the Complaint, or otherwise.
In the second place, assuming that the property owner who is sufliciently
wealthy to make a six months’ sojourn in Europe finds on his return that his
