Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

WE

E publish in this issue of the LAW JOURNAL the address of Mr. J. Wreford Budd, President of the Incorporated Law Society, recently delivered at Liverpool, England. It might seem at first that this paper is one which might have little or no interest in the United States, but on a second consideration it is apparent that the subjects which are discussed not only give us a clear insight into many English legal matters, but demonstrate the development of the science and the desire in our sister country of more appropriate legal methods. The question of land transfers is one which has been greatly discussed in this country because of our present unwieldy and intricate systems. We have already published considerable in regard to the English Companies' Acts, which is, at least, in advance of 3 our own methods. Perhaps, though, the most remarkable point of the address is the discussion of a better and more business-like method of legal procedure. Taking the very words of Mr. Budd, he says: "Ordinary business men having a dispute to settle, arising in the ordinary course of business, have for many years past been found to prefer to resort to arbitration and other unsuccessful methods of settling their disputes rather than submit to the expense and delay involved in recourse to the tribunals of the country." This is certainly an admission which we regret to say we must concur in; it is a state of affairs which is lamentable and which many of the legal profession in the round of their yearly toils fail absolutely to consider; it is a state which may cure itself or otherwise may seriously injure those whose lassitude and inactivity prevent their taking active steps to remedy such circumstances. It seems most unfortunate that this condition of affairs should be recognized as existing not only here, but in England. A VOL. 52-No. 17.

beginning has been made; admissions from prominent members of the profession in both. countries are heard, and the most influential papers devoted to legal literature are interested. A minority, generally, cannot rule; but if we can only obtain a hard fighting body of lawyers who are impressed with the absolute necessity of a change on agreed lines, they can thoroughly thrash the large majority of immovable, inactive practitioners, and obtain a

result which will be of practical benefit to members of the legal fraternity and their

clients.

A subject which was also discussed at the meeting of the Incorporated Law Society, was the registration of title and conveyancing reform, and the paper on this subject was read by B. G. Lake, Esq. The desirability of a change in our present methods of recording deeds and mortgages, is evident. The suggestions which appear in the paper of Mr. Lake will at least enable some of us to formulate ideas which may result in a system in which simplicity and economy will be the main characteristics.

said:

[ocr errors]

Mr. Lake

The evidence clearly shows that the system of registration of title established by the act of 1875, requires complete remodeling, and, as will be seen by reference to the report, the Attorney-General scarcely disputed this. Mr. Wolstenholme's evidence, from his wide experience and acknowledged eminence as a conveyancing counsel, carried great weight, and was. busi-ancing well supported by that of our then president, Mr. Hunter, who devoted a great deal of time and labor to the subject, and by the numerous witnesses, lay as well as professional, from different parts of the country, who proved the great rapidity, cheapness and security with. which conveyancing of all kinds, especially in I do small transactions, is now carried out. not propose to do more than refer to the evidence so given. The evidence must, I think, have satisfied all who heard it that, although solicitors are naturally biased in favor of the existing system of conveyancing, with which they are familiar, and which, in their opinion, provides for all the requirements of land dealing, their opposition is not to registration of title as such, but to the proposal to make it compulsory, while yet untried and imperfect,

[graphic]

inatters, would be intolerable.' Nor is this sur
prising, for the principle of the bill is to take
the title of every landowner out of his own care
and to place it in charge of State officials, with
the result that the landowner who, under the
present system, gets a title which is, or after
a certain number of years will become, abso-
lutely perfect, and who, under the present sys-
tem, cannot be dispossessed or prejudiced ex-
cept by his own act or default, will always be at
the mercy of a careless, credulous, or fraudulent
official, by whose neglect or act he may at any
time lose his land altogether, and even if he be
entitled to compensation at all, will have paid
for it out of his own pocket, and will only ob
tain it after contested proceedings with their
attendant cost and delay. The existence of
this danger was scarcely contested, and, though
this was not admitted, witness after witness
showed that, in their opinion, registration of
title, as at present established, would add con-
siderably to the cost of all transactions, as well
large as small, with little or no advantage to
the present generation. Probably Lord Hals-
bury, now again Lord Chancellor, will, ere
long, introduce a measure for extending the
system of registration of title. If this be so,
it is to be hoped that he will not be satisfied to
follow blindly the views put forward by the
land registry authorities, but will avail himself
of the knowledge and experience of convey.
ancing counsel and solicitors, and will intro-
duce a well-considered measure repealing the
act of 1875, introducing the amendments which
have been shown to be necessary, and provid

instead of so improving and amending it as to make it flexible and attractive, and then allowing landowners (as is the case generally in Australian colonies, except as to land alienated in fee by the crown subsequently to the special act introducing the system into each colony) the option of selecting whichever system might seem most suitable to their needs. It was also proved that the opposition was not confined to solicitors, though they, as having the most practical acquaintance with dealings in land, naturally took the lead, but was concurred in by the most eminent conveyancers, by bankers and by building and land societies. The chief argument in favor of compulsion was that the system would not otherwise become known or self-supporting, and the lord chancellor suggested that the practical failure up to the present time, of the system of 1875, was due to ignorance of its advantages. But the suggestion was deprived of weight when it was pointed out and not disputed that Sir R. Torrens, the founder of the Australian system which led to the acts of 1862 and 1875, refused to register his English land; that neither Lord Halsbury nor Lord Herschell, both of whom are landowners, had taken advantage of the act which they have so persistently endeavored to make compulsory on others; and that no building or land society, notwithstanding the missionary efforts of Mr. Brickdale and the advertisements issued by the land registry, has as yet been induced to give the system a trial. In other words, dealers in land, who have at present the option of either registering their property under the act of 1875 or of dealing with it according to the presenting for the establishment of a system of regis system, have not been convinced that there is any advantage in taking the former course. As was well stated by Mr. C. T. Saunders, 'the rigidity of the forms and regulations-trol of the registry in a small working board the want of elasticity to accommodate them to ever-varying circumstances - the interposition of a government official who must take cases in their order, regardless of emergencythe inability which must then exist of the solicitor being able to promise the client an all-periment than they are at present, when the step, important advance of money within a few days, as he now can the daily fret and annoyance arising from delays and official requirements in the place of the present free and uncontrolled mode of dealing with ordinary conveyancing

[ocr errors]

tration of title which, without being compulsory or costly, will be flexible and attractive. Flexibility can only be secured by vesting the con

with considerable executive powers, and composed, in part at least, of practicing barristers and solicitors. If, in addition, the power to remove land from the register were restored, landowners would be more ready to try the ex

once taken, is irrevocable, while the fear lest the right of removal might be extensively exercised would lead the officials to do all in their power to make the working of the system rapid and free from friction. The Lord Chancellor

may feel assured that, if he should deem it land or a purchaser whether he had or had not right to follow such a course as I have ven- notice of its existence. Where the title to the tured to indicate, there will be every desire on property is well known, or the intending purthe part of solicitors to place their knowledge chaser is otherwise satisfied that there are no and experience at his disposal, and to give the trusts or undisclosed incumbrances affecting new system, if established, a full and fair trial. the property, the search could and would, Whatever may be the future of registration of no doubt, be neglected, as is often the case title (and I am still, as I long have been, at present. Provision should be made for an advocate of its establishment as an al- an official search, for communicating with ternative system which, if properly managed the register office through the post, and for a and modified from time to time as circum- short interval (say two days) until the expirastances require, may eventually supersede, in tion of which a distringas, though lodged, the case of many estates, the system of con- should not be of any effect against a bona fide veyancing which now exists), it is clearly our purchaser or mortgagee. This would make it duty to do our utmost to simplify, perfect and possible to complete sales and mortgages elsecheapen the existing method of dealing with where than at the register office. A deposit of land. The interests of solicitors and their the title-deeds would, às at present, be available clients are in the long run identical, and the to create an equitable security, which could more dealings in land are facilitated the greater either be made absolutely safe by means of a will be their number, and the more important distringas, or, as at present, rest on the pracand necessary will become the class of skilled tical impossibility of dealing with the property agents to carry them out. How best to effect without their production. Such a reform would such reforms as may be necessary has been not only greatly simplify the existing system of under consideration by the council ever since conveyancing, but would take away all justifithe address at Bristol last year of our then cation for making registration of title compulpresident, and the evidence of Mr. Wolsten- sory. Any landowner who preferred to keep. holme, Mr. Hunter and others pointed out his deeds and be his own registrar could and pretty clearly the direction which any such re- should be allowed to do so. The distringas T forms must take. It may be reasonably antici- register would not require the aid of a map, pated that just as Mr. N. T. Lawrence's presi- which is a fertile source of difficulty and exdential address at Cambridge, in 1879, was the pense; for whether for a distringas or an inprecursor of the conveyancing reforms of 1881 hibition—i. e., a stop-order—it would be suffi and 1882, so Mr. Hunter's presidential address cient that the name of the house or estate of of 1894 may prove the origin of further and the parish or township, and, in case of town more extensive reforms during the present property, of the street in which it is situate, Parliament. Mr. Wolstenholme had, in 1862, with the number or distinctive name of the read a paper on the simplification of convey house, should be entered in the register. If, ancing, and during the inquiry before the in addition, power were given to the cautioner select committee of the past session he handed or inhibitioner to declare, on receipt of a notice in a summary of that paper, which will be of proposed dealing, that the distringas or infound at p. 238 of the report, and should be hibition did not affect the property about to be carefully studied. Its proposals, if embodied dealt with, or that the dealing might proceed into law, would 'reduce the title to land to a notwithstanding the distringas or inhibition, series of simple conveyances of the legal fee- and without prejudice to the distringas or simple, or a rent-charge in fee, or a term of inhibition as against other property not years absolute, apart from all equities.' Equit- dealt with, the trifling inconvenience of a able interests would be protected by a dis- register with its attendant search would be tringas register, which would be the only reduced to a minimum. Of course, a caution search obligatory on a purchaser, whether as would be lodged at the risk of the cautioner regards bankruptcy or otherwise, and no equit- being made liable in damages if it were lodged able interest not so protected would affect the without good cause. When lodged, it should

[graphic]

entitle the cautioner to notice of any intended dealing, and should remain in force for (say) fourteen or even twenty-one days after warning. An inhibition or stop-order should remain in force until withdrawn or otherwise cancelled, either altogether or as regards a particular property, and would only be put on with consent of the landowner or by order of court. With a view to faciltate searches, there should be a register in every principal county court, with a general register in London, so that a complete search could always be made in the metropolis in cases in which property was situate in more than one county or district. There are many reforms not mentioned in Mr. Wolstenholme's paper which, or some of which, could be properly introduced into any bill which may be prepared to carry his proposals into effect. For instance, succession duty should not affect land in the hands of a purchaser for value, but should as is already the case in sales under the Settled Land Acts, attach to the purchasemoney and remain a personal liability on the vendor. This reform alone would do more than anything else to shorten the examination of title. Sales made through the Chancery Division should confer on the purchaser an absolute title to the property or the interest in property which was the subject of the sale, all adverse rights being transferred to the money, which would be paid into court and distributed by order of the judge in chambers. This is a suggestion thrown out by Mr. Wolstenholme, and, though not free from practical difficulties, would be very useful in dealing with existing titles, though after the adoption of his proposals it would be of less value. A purchaser who acquires only a portion of property held under a common title, and who, therefore, does not obtain possession of the title-deeds,

should be entitled to have indorsed on the last common deed a memorandum showing the date and parties to his conveyance, a short description of the land conveyed, and any restriction affecting the unsold portion of the property. This, if taken advantage of, would render it impossible for the holder of the deeds and apparent owner to deposit and borrow money on them without disclosing the sales which had taken place. It should be provided that the memorandum should only be notice of

the particulars so authorized, not of the contents of the deed. Whether this protection might not be carried further by requiring that, as a condition of its validity against third parties, every conveyance or mortgage (at all events after Mr. Wolstenholme's simplified conveyancing had been introduced) should refer to the previous deed, and a memorandum of its date and parties be indorsed on that deed, is well worth consideration. Such a provision would effectually guard against the suppression of material documents of title, which is the weak point of the existing system. The danger was pointed out many years ago by the late Mr. Cookson, who made a similar suggestion to meet it, but his views were not then adopted. There seems no reason subject to the difficulty of making it clear in whom the legal estate is vested being overcome - why, as was recommended by the select committee of 1879, a simple receipt on a mortgage should not op erate as a reconveyance without any formal deed. Probably no saving would be affected in cases in which the mortgage was of long standing and the equity of redemption had been dealt with; but in simple cases the relief would be considerable. It must not be overlooked that these and similar reforms will lessen the responsibility of solicitors, and cause a dein cases of ordinary sales and purchases. But mand for reduction of the authorized charges the evidence recently adduced shows that the scale charge, though not, in my opinion, excessive, does not prevail generally, at all events not in country districts; and the probability is that if its amount were reduced it would be more uniformly adopted. However this may be, solicitors exist for the public, not the public for solicitors, and in the long run skill and ability will reap their due reward, especially now that the law permits a special agreement for excep

tional services."

Abstracts of Recent Decisions.

[ocr errors]

FEDERAL COURTS-EQUITY-PARTITION.- -A Federal Court of equity cannot entertain a suit for partition of lands where the plaintiff's title is denied, although a State statute permits courts of equity to take cognizance of questions of title in partition suits. (American Ass'n v. Eastern Kentucky Land Co., U. S. C. C. [Va.], 68 Fed. Rep. 721.)

A

T

ANNUAL ADDRESS BEFORE THE INCOR-
PORATED LAW SOCIETY BY ITS PRESI-
DENT. J. WREFORD BUDD, AT LIVER-
POOL, ENGLAND.

It is now forty years since what I believe was the first meeting in the provinces of members of our profession was held in 1855, at Birmingham, under the auspices of the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association, which had, as you know, been formed in 1844, and which was in 1874 amalgamated with the Incorporated Law Society, and this is the twenty-second annual provincial meeting of our own society. Many of the papers which are read at these provincial meetings deal with subjects which are of great interest, not only to ourselves but to the public at large, and we may, I think, note with satisfaction that some of those read in years past, and the discussions which have taken place upon them, have contributed in no small measure to many important improvements in law and practice; and I trust that these meetings will continue in the future to be what they have been in the past, not only pleasant social gatherings at which we meet and learn to know more of one another, and so facilitate the transaction of business when our professional relations bring us into contact, but useful meetings of business men, at which we discuss and exchange our views on subjects of interest to our profession, and so fit us better to assist with our counsels and suggestions when alterations in the law or its administration are contemplated. I am sure that our present meeting at Liverpool will form no exception to the rule. On two previous occasions, namely, in 1875 and 1885, have we met in Liverpool and have received the hospitality of the Liverpool Law Society, whose institution dates back almost to 1825, the date of the foundation of our own Incorporated Law Society, for it was itself founded in 1827, and has been incorporated since 1867. As naturally might be expected in a city where life commercially and intellectually is so active as it is in Liverpool, the Liverpool Law Society has ever been in the van of all movements tending to improve the education and status of members of our profession and to facilitate the transaction of the important business with which, as members of that profession, we are intrusted. My own whole business life has been spent in the heart of the city of London, and in the midst of commercial business of every kind, and it is, therefore, a great satisfaction to me to have the honor of presiding over your deliberations at Liverpool, the largest provincial city in the kingdom, and the center of commercial activity and prosperity. $ There are so many subjects of interest to us, and so much has happened to attract our attention during the past year, that I have felt some difficulty in

selecting those topics upon which to address you; for it is impossible in the short compass of a president's address to speak of more than a very few of the numerous matters which are of so great interest to us, and to which, if time permitted, I should have been glad to direct your attention. There is one subject which must be in the minds of many if not of all of those whom I am now addressing, and which I desire to allude to before passing to the other matters of my address. I mean, of course, the loss which we have all sustained during the last year by the death of our old and valued colleague, Mr. Jevons. Mr. Jevons has passed away from us at a ripe old age and with the respect of all who knew him. There was no one who had more at heart the higher education of those aspiring to be members of our profession, and how long and earnestly he labored in that direction you all know. His colleagues with whom he worked as an active member of the Liverpool Law Association knew his worth; and he was no less respected at the Council Board in London of the Incorporated Law Society, where he held a seat for eighteen years. His long and distinguished professional career is closed; but he has left behind him an example of disinterested zeal for the higher interests of the profession which we can only emulate and admire.

It is customary for your president to review at the annual provincial meeting the more important Acts of Parliament which have been passed in the preceding session. My task in this respect is this year a short one. The amount of legislation has been very small, but there are one or two enactments to record, and which interest us from a professional point of view. First, there is the Solicitor Mortgagees Costs Act, promoted by the Liverpool Law Society, and which has remedied some of the hardships of the case-made law on this subject, and with the provisions of which you are, of course, all already familiar. The Land Clauses (Taxation of Costs) Act has remedied a defect in the Act of 1868 and 1869, and provides for the taxation by one of the masters of the Supreme Court of all Consolidation Acts. Then there was a most useful provision, which has been inserted in the Finance Act, empowering the commissioners of internal revenue to mitigate or remit at any time any penalty payable on stamping deeds, so that the limit of time imposed by the Stamp Act of 1891 no longer hampers the commissioners in this repect. By the Judicial Committee Amendment Act provision is made for five judges of the Supreme Courts of the colonies of Canada, Australasia and South Africa becoming members of the judicial committee of the privy council. By the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act considerable facilities are given for married women in poor circumstances obtaining

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »